Transforming an expression

jpanknin

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Messages
89
I'm working on finding inverse functions. I came across the following and the result is something I've struggled with for a long time. The function is:[math]f(x) = 2-5x[/math] and for the inverse I got:[math]\frac{x-2}{-5}[/math]However, the answer is given as:[math]\frac{2-x}{5}[/math]I know this is the answer I got multiplied by -1, but why and how can that be legal if we're not also multiplying the other side of the equation by -1?
 
I'm working on finding inverse functions. I came across the following and the result is something I've struggled with for a long time. The function is:[math]f(x) = 2-5x[/math] and for the inverse I got:[math]\frac{x-2}{-5}[/math]However, the answer is given as:[math]\frac{2-x}{5}[/math]I know this is the answer I got multiplied by -1, but why and how can that be legal if we're not also multiplying the other side of the equation by -1?
Your answer is equivalent to theirs (but not as pretty). You can always multiply both the numerator and the denominator of a fraction by the same number; use -1, and you'll get their form (after distributing and rearranging).
 
I'm working on finding inverse functions. I came across the following and the result is something I've struggled with for a long time. The function is:[math]f(x) = 2-5x[/math] and for the inverse I got:[math]\frac{x-2}{-5}[/math]However, the answer is given as:[math]\frac{2-x}{5}[/math]I know this is the answer I got multiplied by -1, but why and how can that be legal if we're not also multiplying the other side of the equation by -1?
We are multiplying by ONE, not by minus 1. Anything divided by itself (other than zero) equals 1.

[math] \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} = \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} * 1 = \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} * \dfrac{-1}{-1} = \dfrac{-x + 2}{5} = \dfrac{2 - x}{5}. [/math]
Transforming an expression by multiplying it by a convenient form of 1 or by adding to it a convenient form of zero are basic techniques in transforming expressions.
 
Your answer is equivalent to theirs (but not as pretty). You can always multiply both the numerator and the denominator of a fraction by the same number; use -1, and you'll get their form (after distributing and rearranging).
Why is it not as pretty? I always viewed the variable coming first (and as a positive) as being the proper way to write the expression. But I keep seeing it written (2-x)/5 in books. Why is the (2-x)/5 best practice?
 
We are multiplying by ONE, not by minus 1. Anything divided by itself (other than zero) equals 1.

[math] \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} = \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} * 1 = \dfrac{x - 2}{-5} * \dfrac{-1}{-1} = \dfrac{-x + 2}{5} = \dfrac{2 - x}{5}. [/math]
Transforming an expression by multiplying it by a convenient form of 1 or by adding to it a convenient form of zero are basic techniques in transforming expressions.
Yes, I meant multiply both numerator and denominator by -1. I phrased that poorly. Thank you.
 
Why is it not as pretty? I always viewed the variable coming first (and as a positive) as being the proper way to write the expression. But I keep seeing it written (2-x)/5 in books. Why is the (2-x)/5 best practice?
We generally tend to avoid negative denominators, though they aren't illegal.

Whether the numerator is 2-x or -x+2 is just a matter of taste. Or perhaps context -- I'd prefer either to the other under different circumstances -- depending on whether I dislike negative leading terms, or non-descending order, more.

Also, keep in mind that your answer not looking the same as the book's doesn't mean it's wrong.
 
Why is it not as pretty? I always viewed the variable coming first (and as a positive) as being the proper way to write the expression. But I keep seeing it written (2-x)/5 in books. Why is the (2-x)/5 best practice?
I have the same predilection as you (starting an expression with "the variable", eg: x) but starting an expression with a positive term (rather than a negative one) does take precedence (from an aesthetic point of view) and a negative denominator really does "look" ugly. ?
However, chacun à son goût, does apply and nobody could fault your answer mathematically. ?
 
We generally tend to avoid negative denominators, though they aren't illegal.

Whether the numerator is 2-x or -x+2 is just a matter of taste. Or perhaps context -- I'd prefer either to the other under different circumstances -- depending on whether I dislike negative leading terms, or non-descending order, more.

Also, keep in mind that your answer not looking the same as the book's doesn't mean it's wrong.
Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you very much.
 
I always viewed the variable coming first
Hi jpanknin. You may write the variable first this way:

\(\displaystyle -\frac{x - 2}{5}\quad\) ;)

Once you've multiplied a sufficient number of algebraic ratios by [imath]\frac{-1}{-1}[/imath], you'll come to realize that a negation symbol in a ratio (as in the forms shown below) may be shifted to one of three positions: in the numerator, in the denominator or out in front.

\(\displaystyle \frac{-a}{b} \; = \; \frac{a}{-b} \; = \; -\frac{a}{b}\)

Therefore, when you see something like [imath]\frac{x - 2}{-5}[/imath], you may immediately consider alternate forms:

\(\displaystyle \frac{-(x - 2)}{5} \quad -\frac{x - 2}{5}\)
[imath]\;[/imath]
 
Top