Help: I need help correcting my problems. Can anyone give me a thorough explanation of what I did wrong in these? Please and Thank you.
>>8515769
Well, for starters stop being lazy and actually scan your shit for better comprehension.
Holy fug, OP. A 39 in Algebra II?
Go to tutoring.
>>8515769
2: Graph for f(x) is okay, but I don't know why you put it under g(x).
Your description of the transformation from f(x) to g(x) is incorrect.
First thing we do is replace x with x+1, which shifts the graph to the left by 1. [math]y = 2^x \implies y = 2^{x + 1}.[/math]
Then, we replace y with -y, which reflects the graph across the x-axis. [math]y = 2^{x + 1} \implies -y = 2^{x + 1} \implies y = -2^{x + 1}.[/math]
And finally, replace y with y - 3 to shift the graph up by three. [math]y = -2^{x + 1} \implies y - 3 = 2^{x + 1} \implies y = 2^{x + 1} + 3.[/math] There's g(x).
4: To find the x-intercept, set f(x) = 0. So we have [math]0 = log_3x \implies x = 3^0 = 1.[/math]. (If you aren't used to dealing with logs, start wrapping your head around them ASAP).
There is no end behavior as x approaches negative infinity because f(x) isn't defined for negative values of x.
Your transformation is correct.
>>8515769
>x-intercepts: none
>draws a graph with an x-intercept
>>8515774
7: Kek
8: Remember that log(a) + log(b) = log(a*b). So [math]\log x^{19/2} + \log 3^3 = \log (3^3 x^{19/2}).[/math]. Setting that equal to 2, you should be able to solve x from there.
9 and 10: Word problems are boring.
>>8515853
The graph for f(x) is okay...
>2^x having negative values
What the fuck
You should never get graphing wrong (especially if you are allowed a calculator), literally just plug in values of x and plot them. This would trivialize question 2 because everything it asks can be seen from the graph.
For the second image, it just seems like you need to review log properties and work more examples. Go to Khan Academy if you haven't already and watch the precalc videos.
>>8515861
PreCal is literally Alg II/ Trig review with limits.