banned-users

1 was good

i want to play the first one first because your character is relevant to the second one

Is it on sale for less than 96 cents canadian

$12.49 USD

how do you show a piecewise function does not have a derivative at a certain value?

I need to give my character the best moves when i transfer him

no clue what piecewise is

the limit going to it from each direction is different

oh

I got you

that is what that is

yeah, what leg said

but its giving me the same answer...

Sadly i won't have xenoverse 2 till christmas

then it exists

and the question asks you to show that it is different

the limit of the derivate

the derivative is a limit

wait

if the slope going in and out is the same, its continuous

so take the limit of a limit?

the question says that it is 100% not continuous

can you give the equation?

what is the function

also it does not have to be continuous for it to have the same slope

could have a removable or point discontinuity

if you want to be teachnical

give us the function you dip

no shit

you got me jonsen for some function pron

f(x) = x^3 for all x </= 1, 3x for all x>1

</= is less than or equal to

however you are supposed to denote that

rip code block

I get 3 for both derivatives

3x^2 for first

3 for second

double derivative

where x=1 btw

so it would be 3 for both

textbook is wrong

under what circumstance does 6!=1?

maybe its supposed to be x=0?

when 1=0 because....

x = 0 is defined

in this world

a-b = 0

can't divide by zero

the old screw the rules proof rules

I know

yeah I think the textbook is actually wrong

because it would make sense if it was x=0

no it wouldn't

0 =/= 3

maybe I am suposed to use tthe calculattor for this

piecewise functions mean only one piece is evaluated at each part

Kappa

thats extremely easy

I know the asymptote is at -3/4

it is

how the fuck do I prove it

just find the limit...

literally solve for x = infinity

They explicitly do not want that

tada its proved

that want us to prove it using some math proof thing I forget

lhospitals rule?

no that wouldn't apply

never heard of it

so no

hm

this one is wierd

I think I need to use this, but change it so it works for negative infinity:

Let f be a function defined on some interval (-infinity,a), then

wait

shit son, this seems to be the one

I thought this was the positive one, this is the negative one

oh wait