tacit badger
Here, the textbook says that we want to consider the rate of change over smaller and smaller intervals. This makes sense. However, I'm confused why we want x2 to aproach x1. I understand why we would want the change in x to approach 0, but if we let x2 aproach x1, isn't that finding the negative inverse of the slope? Like, aren't we going backwards?
quiet sunBOT
tacit badger
carmine prism
Its the same notation just more confusing
tacit badger
I saw this, and it makes a bit more sense, but won't the limit of a just be a
carmine prism
Its the same as this
Just expressed differently
x - a = h
And fx - fa = fx+h - fx
bold grail
not really. We are approaching the change of f(x) when we move away from x but very subtle moving away.
"Approaching" also sounds weird, because it's literally the change at x
tacit badger
ohh, so h is the change in x?
okay that makes some more sense
how would we use either equation to solve this if there exists no point?
do I just use the starting point
bold grail
I have no idea what you are doing or what some of those signs mean
tacit badger
I have no idea what you are doing or what some of those signs mean
i plugged in the function for f(a + h) and I added h
and then I plugged in 0 for f(a) since f(a) returns zero at the orgin
bold grail
but why do you do that.
tacit badger
but why do you do that.
I substituted the point, P, for (5,0), and substituted the function, y, for the function √x-5
bold grail
you don't need any point
I am too lazy to explain it and im in a hurry
can I send you the answer
tacit badger
can I send you the answer
I have the answer, but I don't know how to get it
but feel free and no worries
tacit badger
I do! Thank you so much.
tacit badger
.close
