What The Heck, Some Math
This has been a recordsetting day for this blog (4 posts). Today I did the last of the three “Introduction to Piecewise Functions” lectures. So far I haven’t written out anything like what follows in class and I’m not at all sure I ever will. But it occured to me last night, that as long as we’re taking the whole “sets of ordered pairs” thing seriously, we could consider a piecewise defined function
from a settheoretical point of view … we’re “really” considering the union of certain sets, which are themselves the intersections of certain others. Here we go.
The first line (in the righthand side of the definition of f) can be thought of as telling us to consider
—
the intersection of a parabola and the “halfplane” to the left of the vertical line .
This can be abbreviated further, as —the restriction of the squaring function to the (“subdomain”) . Using this language, we then have
.
There it is. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a piecewise function spelled out this way and for some reason I find it sort of charming. Better with the pictures, of course. I’d pay a lot of money to find out how to post nice graphics for free.

1
Pingback on Sep 22nd, 2020 at 4:12 pm
[…] graph transformations01/08/09 CapitalScriptDoff domain & range01/13/09 What The Heck, Some Math piecewise functions01/22/09 Big Day For Former Math Professor selfpublishing01/22/09 Message: I […]

2
Pingback on Dec 14th, 2020 at 12:59 pm
[…] graph transformations 01/08/09 CapitalScriptDoff domain & range 01/13/09 What The Heck, Some Math piecewise functions 01/22/09 Big Day For Former Math Professor selfpublishing 01/22/09 Message: I […]
January 15, 2009 at 2:28 am
Not sure if a “comment(s)” can be a “question(s)” so if not I apologize but if this is okay here’s the question…
{Q.1}
I understand the above such that…
begin by graphing both functions x(squared) AND 3x… then highlight the x’s that are less than 2 on the x(squared) graph and also highlight the x’s on the 3x graph that are greater than or equal to 2 but less than or equal to 4 with such an answer of the domain of x(squared) with the above conditions is (infinity, 2) and the domain of 3x with the above conditions is [2,4]
Is this correct?
January 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
not only *allowed* but *encouraged*:
questions might well be the best *kind* of comment!
i think you’re seeing the picture pretty clearly …
\*
begin by graphing both functions x(squared) AND 3x… then highlight the x’s that are less than 2 on the x(squared) graph and also highlight the x’s on the 3x graph that are greater than or equal to 2 but less than or equal to 4
*/
thus far i’m fairly sure i understand you
\*
with such an answer of the domain of x(squared) with the above conditions is (infinity, 2) and the domain of 3x with the above conditions is [2,4]
*/
this bit isn’t quite so clear.
i’m actually thinking of taking the x^2
(internet standard for “xsquared” …
that this looks like the calculator code
makes it easy to remember … that it’s
also the “TeX” [math typesetting program]
is a nice bonus …), taking the x^2, i say,
and “highlighting” the bits with x’s
less than two (i usually think of this as
“throwing away” the part of the x^2 curve
that’s *not* in the halfplane x >= 2
[>= here denotes “greater than or equal to”;
this *isn’t* standard … but is pretty common;
among the mathheads, \ge is probably more so …
DOLLARSIGN latex \ge DOLLARSIGN produces ].
this “highlighted” piece of the x^2 curve is
the restriction of the squaring function
to the interval (infty, 2): if we consider
to be the “usual” squaring function
(i.e., the “whole thing”, with ),
the symbol for this
restricted function is pretty common; since i’m stressing
the “ordered pair” pointofview, i’ve referred to
.
anyhow, next we find — *draw*, really, since
in actual exercises, we’re typically constructing
*pictures* of the sets in question — the restriction
of the “subtract from three” function to [2,4].
forming the union of the two restricted functions
then amounts to drawing the curve and the line
segment and sticking a label on it (y = f(x) here).
January 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm
part of the point i was making at such great length
a moment ago is that, from the point of view
taken in this post, we’re constructing the
individual restrictionsofsets *first* (by forming
the *intersections* of certain sets), and only then
putting ’em together into a single function
(which is the *union* of the restrictions).
in working out actual textbook problems, it’s common
to graph both “full” functions on a single coordinate frame
and then, yes indeed, *highlight* certain parts
of each of the relevant pieces … i’ve recently called this
part of the procedure the “first draft”, to be followed
by a new picture consisting only of the highlighted pieces
(the “final draft”). there’s sure nothing wrong with this.
the restrictindividualsetsfirst approach i’ve described
sure isn’t offered here as a better way to “get the answer”;
rather, i’m focussed on how to *describe* the answer
in the settheoretic language …
it’s a lot of trouble, to be sure. but the advantage
is that we’re able to say, in at least some sense,
*exactly* what we’re talking about …
“union” and “intersection” are the kind of thing that,
for example, can be explained *to a computer*
in some alreadyexisting format, whereas a concept
like “highlighting”, easily explained to a human
(that cares; motivation must of course be assumed),
would require some specialpurpose coding to computerize.
the goal of all of our mathematics somehow seems
to get all the *thinking* done onceandforall
(for a given problemtype, say … then think
about something *else*); having done this,
we can then simply *calculate* (or let a robot do it).
a welldesigned *notation* is one of the most powerful
tools in this endeavor.
January 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm
i think i understand this now :) the problem in class was tough, but i understood it so maybe that means i did good on the quiz lol
January 17, 2009 at 5:11 am
While we are on the subject of “questions . . . encouraged” could you offer a prediction for text sections to be covered the next two – three weeks? I want to keep uptospeed if not forging ahead, but it would be helpful to plan around work schedules (although math is my beall and endall for this quarter, income needs loom on the horizon lol). No expectation for assignments “written in stone,” a moving target is welcome. Thanks!
January 20, 2009 at 5:56 pm
thanks for the noodge, Wing5Up …
there’s a daytoday breakdown
created by the course coordinators.
i’d’ve published it in the syllabus
but for some reason they ask us not to.
anyhow, in principle, *i*’ve got it
(though, and this won’t surprise you,
i can’t put my hand on it right *now* …).
and it’s important that i check it from time to time.
so i’ll be sure to check it publicly–
i.e., make an inclass announcement
of the game plan for the next couple weeks.
do please remind me of this during class
if for some reason i seem to’ve forgotten …
meanwhile, more or less obviously i hope,
we’ll be starting to look at quadratic equations
next (with careful reference to how the theory
of *transformations*–our latest topic–can be
made to shine its light on “y = x^2” and its relatives).
“forging ahead” is of course a wonderful idea;
in the current context, this might very well
have the somewhatparadoxical flavor of *looking back*:
one way to be prepared for what’s coming is
to be *very confident* with (a) factoring polynomials
and (b) working in (the complex #’s)–
to name only two topics introduced in earlier courses
(but here to be explored in much greater depth).
how i’ve escaped making an enormous fuss
about these topics (several times!) in class so far
i’ll never know … they’re coming up fast …