Give a counterexample to disprove the statement "all squares are congruent"
1 answer:
You might be interested in
Answer:
1) Function; Linear Function (y=x)
2) Function; Exponential Function (y=bˣ)
3) Not a function.
Step-by-step explanation:
So, let's go through each table of values. I'm also going to graph them (see attached graphs) because it will make things simpler and provide a visual.
First, also recall what the definition of a function is. A function is a function if and only if an x only has <em>one</em> distinct y-value. No x can have two or more y-values. For instance, (1,2) and (1,3) is <em>not</em> a function between the x repeats. So, let's go through the choices:
1)
We have the table as shown. Let's plot the points. See TABLE 1:
First, there are no repeating x-values, so we can be sure that this is indeed a function.
Looking at the graph, we can see that this resembles a linear graph. So, the parent function of this is a line.
The parent function of a line is:
So, table 1 is associated with a linear function.
2)
Let's again plot the points. See TABLE 2.
Again, there are no repeating x-values, so this is also a function.
Looking at the graph, this resembles an exponential function. The function increases slowly at first but starts increasing increasingly fast. The parent function is thus an exponential function.
So, table 2 is associated with an exponential function.
3)
First, notice how all the x-coordinates are repeating. And since they do <em>not</em> equal the same thing, this is not a function.
Table 3 is not a function and so has no corresponding family function.
