This might sound like a dumb question but how would I go about

>>8488755
The function was given in the original problem. Just plug the numbers in to that function.

I know but the function is simply y=f(x) or, if you prefer, f(x)=y. How am I supposed to find height with only this information to go off of? I think you're supposed to find the midpoint of the "rectangles." I'll try it and see what happens.

>>8488822
Nothing can cure this amount of retardation.

>>8488822
How are you supposed to numerically estimate the are of the function without knowledge of the function itself?
Can you upload the question?

File: confused black man.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>8488822
>I think you're supposed to find the midpoint of the "rectangles."
just find f(0), f(6), f(12), etc.

>>8488829
Do you mind explaining then please?

>>8488842
That's what I'm having trouble doing, unfortunately.

Weak bait.

Just going off of the image I've uploaded, how in the world does f(0)=3?

>>8488854
post the whole question

The problem defines f(x) somewhere. Look a little harder.

>>8488858
The [math]\approx[/math] symbol means you're plugging values in [math]f[/math] and truncating the number thus obtaining an approximation.

>>8488858
That image is clearly not the whole question though, they refer to an f that is increasing that we are obviously supposed to have more information about.

File: I'mdumb.png (8KB, 478x293px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 478x293px

I chose a similar problem, so the numbers are different. Is the height just half of whatever the x value is?

>>8488870
Oh and it wants you to use five rectangles to find the area underneath the function.

>>8488870
>>8488874
If it didn't tell you what f (x) actually is aND only have a stupid fucking graph with no scale, then you should quit using that book.