OpenStudy (anonymous):

PLEASE HELP. When looking at a rational function, jamal and angie have two different thoughts. jamal says that the function is defined at x=-3, x=-4, and x=6 Angie says the function is undefined at those x values. Descibe a situation where jamal is correct and angie is correct. Is it possible for a situation to exist that they are both correct? Justify your reasoning

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

something cant be defined AND undefined .... so thats off the table

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

there are function with holes in them, which for the operation of finding a limit, those holes can be filled by using and equivalent, but not equal, function

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

does that make sense?

4 years ago
OpenStudy (anonymous):

kinda yea, im stupid when it comes to math lol

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

for example:\[\frac{2(x-a)}{(x-a)}\] is defined for all x\(\ne\) a, there exists a hole in the graph at x=a. |dw:1400345618897:dw| IF we were to fill it in to make a complete line then we could model it with the function 2(1)

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

one of your persons is saying that the rational function has holes in it that have no value there ... they are ghosts. the other is saying that he thinks the holes are unimportant and is filling them in with an equivalent (but not equal) function by canceling (x-a)/(x-a) = 1

4 years ago
OpenStudy (amistre64):

if im driving down the road, following my GPS, and I get to a point where a bridge is out ... then the bridge is actaully missing and does not exist at the point in the road. My GPS is arguing with me otherwise saying that their equivalent (but not actual) mapping is fine since it simply does not recognize that there is no bridge there as the map clearly shows one.

4 years ago