Understanding the translation of a graph (horizontally)

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have been having trouble understanding the translation of a graph. I understand the 'rule in the sense that the '$+$' shifts to the left and the '$-$' to the right when dealing with something like e.g. $f(x + 2) = f(x)$.



In the book I am using it has written that if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, where $c > 0$ then the value of $g$ at $x$ is the same as the value of $f$ at $x-c$.



So ...if $c = 2$ and my function for $g$ was $g(x) = x^2$ and I put in $x=3$ I'd get $9$. For $f(x-c)$ I don't quite understand this part. Am I wanting to put in the same $x$ (i.e. $x = 3$) which would give me $f(3-1) = f(1) = g(3) = 9$. When I do this it seems to work against how I thought it would go. To me this implies that in $g(x)$ when I input $3$ for $x$ I'd get a $y$ value of $9$. Then when I input $x=3$ in the function for '$f$' I'd end up with $f(1)$ provides me with $9$. It seems $g(1)$ is going back $2$ spaces to the left when compared to $f(3)$ in order to get the answer $9$ (based on $3-1 =2
$, from within the functions respective brackets)



Clearly I misunderstand something here.....










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I have been having trouble understanding the translation of a graph. I understand the 'rule in the sense that the '$+$' shifts to the left and the '$-$' to the right when dealing with something like e.g. $f(x + 2) = f(x)$.



    In the book I am using it has written that if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, where $c > 0$ then the value of $g$ at $x$ is the same as the value of $f$ at $x-c$.



    So ...if $c = 2$ and my function for $g$ was $g(x) = x^2$ and I put in $x=3$ I'd get $9$. For $f(x-c)$ I don't quite understand this part. Am I wanting to put in the same $x$ (i.e. $x = 3$) which would give me $f(3-1) = f(1) = g(3) = 9$. When I do this it seems to work against how I thought it would go. To me this implies that in $g(x)$ when I input $3$ for $x$ I'd get a $y$ value of $9$. Then when I input $x=3$ in the function for '$f$' I'd end up with $f(1)$ provides me with $9$. It seems $g(1)$ is going back $2$ spaces to the left when compared to $f(3)$ in order to get the answer $9$ (based on $3-1 =2
    $, from within the functions respective brackets)



    Clearly I misunderstand something here.....










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I have been having trouble understanding the translation of a graph. I understand the 'rule in the sense that the '$+$' shifts to the left and the '$-$' to the right when dealing with something like e.g. $f(x + 2) = f(x)$.



      In the book I am using it has written that if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, where $c > 0$ then the value of $g$ at $x$ is the same as the value of $f$ at $x-c$.



      So ...if $c = 2$ and my function for $g$ was $g(x) = x^2$ and I put in $x=3$ I'd get $9$. For $f(x-c)$ I don't quite understand this part. Am I wanting to put in the same $x$ (i.e. $x = 3$) which would give me $f(3-1) = f(1) = g(3) = 9$. When I do this it seems to work against how I thought it would go. To me this implies that in $g(x)$ when I input $3$ for $x$ I'd get a $y$ value of $9$. Then when I input $x=3$ in the function for '$f$' I'd end up with $f(1)$ provides me with $9$. It seems $g(1)$ is going back $2$ spaces to the left when compared to $f(3)$ in order to get the answer $9$ (based on $3-1 =2
      $, from within the functions respective brackets)



      Clearly I misunderstand something here.....










      share|cite|improve this question















      I have been having trouble understanding the translation of a graph. I understand the 'rule in the sense that the '$+$' shifts to the left and the '$-$' to the right when dealing with something like e.g. $f(x + 2) = f(x)$.



      In the book I am using it has written that if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, where $c > 0$ then the value of $g$ at $x$ is the same as the value of $f$ at $x-c$.



      So ...if $c = 2$ and my function for $g$ was $g(x) = x^2$ and I put in $x=3$ I'd get $9$. For $f(x-c)$ I don't quite understand this part. Am I wanting to put in the same $x$ (i.e. $x = 3$) which would give me $f(3-1) = f(1) = g(3) = 9$. When I do this it seems to work against how I thought it would go. To me this implies that in $g(x)$ when I input $3$ for $x$ I'd get a $y$ value of $9$. Then when I input $x=3$ in the function for '$f$' I'd end up with $f(1)$ provides me with $9$. It seems $g(1)$ is going back $2$ spaces to the left when compared to $f(3)$ in order to get the answer $9$ (based on $3-1 =2
      $, from within the functions respective brackets)



      Clearly I misunderstand something here.....







      algebra-precalculus graphing-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Feb 27 '15 at 13:57









      N. F. Taussig

      39.9k93253




      39.9k93253










      asked Feb 27 '15 at 2:36









      user3754366

      6439




      6439




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          I personally think of it like this. Let's use the graphs of $f(x) = sqrtx$ and $g(x) = sqrtx - 3$.



          enter image description here



          In this picture, $f(x) = sqrtx$ is in red. Now, when we look at $g(x) = sqrtx+3 = f(x+3)$, it's getting a head start, so it hits all the same $y$-values, but earlier than regular $sqrtx$.



          So, while $sqrtx = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $sqrtx+3 = 1$ when $x = -2$, which is $3$ units earlier than $f(x)$.



          enter image description here



          And this keeps happening! The function $f(x)$ is always $3$ units behind $g(x) = f(x + 3)$, if you think of the $x$-axis as time; the further to the left $g(x)$ is, the more of a head start it's got. So while $f(x) = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $g(x)$ has already raced ahead, and $g(x) = 2$ when $x = 1$. It takes $f(x)$ an extra $3$ units to hit $f(x) = 2$, when $x = 4$.



          That's what helps me understand the counter-intuitive horizontal shifts, anyway: it's going to take $f(x)$ longer than $f(x + 3)$ to reach the same spot in their journey. Being to the right on the $x$-axis means its taking longer (higher $x$-values) to get to the same spot.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            You are correct in supposing that if you had some function $f(x)$, then if you let $c > 0$ and tried to plot $f(x-c)$, you would get the graph of $f(x)$ shifted $c$ to the right. So if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, then $g$ is the graph that results from shifting $f$ $c$ to the right.



            The part where your confusion is forgivable is where you have a $g$ that is fixed, but you're trying to recover the original $f$. If as you suggest you fix $g(x) = x^2$, fix $c=2$ to get a handle on things, and define $f$ to be such that $g(x)=f(x-2)$, then $f$ must be the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(-2,0)$. (This is so because when you shift such a graph $2$ to the right, you get the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(0,0)$, i.e., $g$.)



            Let's see this by plotting a few points:



            $f(-5) = f(-3 - 2) = g(-3) = 9$



            $f(-4) = f(-2 - 2) = g(-2) = 4$



            $f(-3) = f(-1 - 2) = g(-1) = 1$



            $f(-2) = f(0 - 2) = g(0) = 0$



            $f(-1) = f(1 - 2) = g(1) = 1$



            $f(0) = f(2 - 2) = g(2) = 4$



            $f(1) = f(3 - 2) = g(3) = 9$



            $f(2) = f(4-2) = g(4) = 16$



            $f(3) = f(5 - 2) = g(5) = 25$



            Notice how if you have to calculate values for $f$ in this scenario, you have to massage the input to $f$ a little bit to get it of the form into something that you do know to compute. The general description for this $f$ would be $f(x) = f((x+2)-2) = g(x+2) = (x+2)^2 = x^2 + 4x + 4$.



            Usually, one starts with an $f$, and then shifts it around to obtain new graphs that obey the properties that they're interested in.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              -2
              down vote













              Original function: $g(x)= F(x-h)$ -used for horizontal translations only



              If a positive number were used or plugged in for "$h$", then essentially it would become negative thus "$+$" equals left, to the negatives side or left. Similarly, if a negative number was used, then the two negatives would become a positive, so the graph would move to the positive side or right. This is why horizontal translations are counteractive.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                Your Answer




                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                );
                );
                , "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ready(function()
                var channelOptions =
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "69"
                ;
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
                createEditor();
                );

                else
                createEditor();

                );

                function createEditor()
                StackExchange.prepareEditor(
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: true,
                noModals: false,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: 10,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                );



                );













                 

                draft saved


                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function ()
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1167386%2funderstanding-the-translation-of-a-graph-horizontally%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                );

                Post as a guest






























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                1
                down vote













                I personally think of it like this. Let's use the graphs of $f(x) = sqrtx$ and $g(x) = sqrtx - 3$.



                enter image description here



                In this picture, $f(x) = sqrtx$ is in red. Now, when we look at $g(x) = sqrtx+3 = f(x+3)$, it's getting a head start, so it hits all the same $y$-values, but earlier than regular $sqrtx$.



                So, while $sqrtx = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $sqrtx+3 = 1$ when $x = -2$, which is $3$ units earlier than $f(x)$.



                enter image description here



                And this keeps happening! The function $f(x)$ is always $3$ units behind $g(x) = f(x + 3)$, if you think of the $x$-axis as time; the further to the left $g(x)$ is, the more of a head start it's got. So while $f(x) = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $g(x)$ has already raced ahead, and $g(x) = 2$ when $x = 1$. It takes $f(x)$ an extra $3$ units to hit $f(x) = 2$, when $x = 4$.



                That's what helps me understand the counter-intuitive horizontal shifts, anyway: it's going to take $f(x)$ longer than $f(x + 3)$ to reach the same spot in their journey. Being to the right on the $x$-axis means its taking longer (higher $x$-values) to get to the same spot.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  I personally think of it like this. Let's use the graphs of $f(x) = sqrtx$ and $g(x) = sqrtx - 3$.



                  enter image description here



                  In this picture, $f(x) = sqrtx$ is in red. Now, when we look at $g(x) = sqrtx+3 = f(x+3)$, it's getting a head start, so it hits all the same $y$-values, but earlier than regular $sqrtx$.



                  So, while $sqrtx = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $sqrtx+3 = 1$ when $x = -2$, which is $3$ units earlier than $f(x)$.



                  enter image description here



                  And this keeps happening! The function $f(x)$ is always $3$ units behind $g(x) = f(x + 3)$, if you think of the $x$-axis as time; the further to the left $g(x)$ is, the more of a head start it's got. So while $f(x) = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $g(x)$ has already raced ahead, and $g(x) = 2$ when $x = 1$. It takes $f(x)$ an extra $3$ units to hit $f(x) = 2$, when $x = 4$.



                  That's what helps me understand the counter-intuitive horizontal shifts, anyway: it's going to take $f(x)$ longer than $f(x + 3)$ to reach the same spot in their journey. Being to the right on the $x$-axis means its taking longer (higher $x$-values) to get to the same spot.






                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    I personally think of it like this. Let's use the graphs of $f(x) = sqrtx$ and $g(x) = sqrtx - 3$.



                    enter image description here



                    In this picture, $f(x) = sqrtx$ is in red. Now, when we look at $g(x) = sqrtx+3 = f(x+3)$, it's getting a head start, so it hits all the same $y$-values, but earlier than regular $sqrtx$.



                    So, while $sqrtx = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $sqrtx+3 = 1$ when $x = -2$, which is $3$ units earlier than $f(x)$.



                    enter image description here



                    And this keeps happening! The function $f(x)$ is always $3$ units behind $g(x) = f(x + 3)$, if you think of the $x$-axis as time; the further to the left $g(x)$ is, the more of a head start it's got. So while $f(x) = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $g(x)$ has already raced ahead, and $g(x) = 2$ when $x = 1$. It takes $f(x)$ an extra $3$ units to hit $f(x) = 2$, when $x = 4$.



                    That's what helps me understand the counter-intuitive horizontal shifts, anyway: it's going to take $f(x)$ longer than $f(x + 3)$ to reach the same spot in their journey. Being to the right on the $x$-axis means its taking longer (higher $x$-values) to get to the same spot.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    I personally think of it like this. Let's use the graphs of $f(x) = sqrtx$ and $g(x) = sqrtx - 3$.



                    enter image description here



                    In this picture, $f(x) = sqrtx$ is in red. Now, when we look at $g(x) = sqrtx+3 = f(x+3)$, it's getting a head start, so it hits all the same $y$-values, but earlier than regular $sqrtx$.



                    So, while $sqrtx = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $sqrtx+3 = 1$ when $x = -2$, which is $3$ units earlier than $f(x)$.



                    enter image description here



                    And this keeps happening! The function $f(x)$ is always $3$ units behind $g(x) = f(x + 3)$, if you think of the $x$-axis as time; the further to the left $g(x)$ is, the more of a head start it's got. So while $f(x) = 1$ when $x = 1$, the function $g(x)$ has already raced ahead, and $g(x) = 2$ when $x = 1$. It takes $f(x)$ an extra $3$ units to hit $f(x) = 2$, when $x = 4$.



                    That's what helps me understand the counter-intuitive horizontal shifts, anyway: it's going to take $f(x)$ longer than $f(x + 3)$ to reach the same spot in their journey. Being to the right on the $x$-axis means its taking longer (higher $x$-values) to get to the same spot.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Feb 27 '15 at 6:29









                    pjs36

                    15.5k32859




                    15.5k32859




















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        You are correct in supposing that if you had some function $f(x)$, then if you let $c > 0$ and tried to plot $f(x-c)$, you would get the graph of $f(x)$ shifted $c$ to the right. So if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, then $g$ is the graph that results from shifting $f$ $c$ to the right.



                        The part where your confusion is forgivable is where you have a $g$ that is fixed, but you're trying to recover the original $f$. If as you suggest you fix $g(x) = x^2$, fix $c=2$ to get a handle on things, and define $f$ to be such that $g(x)=f(x-2)$, then $f$ must be the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(-2,0)$. (This is so because when you shift such a graph $2$ to the right, you get the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(0,0)$, i.e., $g$.)



                        Let's see this by plotting a few points:



                        $f(-5) = f(-3 - 2) = g(-3) = 9$



                        $f(-4) = f(-2 - 2) = g(-2) = 4$



                        $f(-3) = f(-1 - 2) = g(-1) = 1$



                        $f(-2) = f(0 - 2) = g(0) = 0$



                        $f(-1) = f(1 - 2) = g(1) = 1$



                        $f(0) = f(2 - 2) = g(2) = 4$



                        $f(1) = f(3 - 2) = g(3) = 9$



                        $f(2) = f(4-2) = g(4) = 16$



                        $f(3) = f(5 - 2) = g(5) = 25$



                        Notice how if you have to calculate values for $f$ in this scenario, you have to massage the input to $f$ a little bit to get it of the form into something that you do know to compute. The general description for this $f$ would be $f(x) = f((x+2)-2) = g(x+2) = (x+2)^2 = x^2 + 4x + 4$.



                        Usually, one starts with an $f$, and then shifts it around to obtain new graphs that obey the properties that they're interested in.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          You are correct in supposing that if you had some function $f(x)$, then if you let $c > 0$ and tried to plot $f(x-c)$, you would get the graph of $f(x)$ shifted $c$ to the right. So if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, then $g$ is the graph that results from shifting $f$ $c$ to the right.



                          The part where your confusion is forgivable is where you have a $g$ that is fixed, but you're trying to recover the original $f$. If as you suggest you fix $g(x) = x^2$, fix $c=2$ to get a handle on things, and define $f$ to be such that $g(x)=f(x-2)$, then $f$ must be the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(-2,0)$. (This is so because when you shift such a graph $2$ to the right, you get the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(0,0)$, i.e., $g$.)



                          Let's see this by plotting a few points:



                          $f(-5) = f(-3 - 2) = g(-3) = 9$



                          $f(-4) = f(-2 - 2) = g(-2) = 4$



                          $f(-3) = f(-1 - 2) = g(-1) = 1$



                          $f(-2) = f(0 - 2) = g(0) = 0$



                          $f(-1) = f(1 - 2) = g(1) = 1$



                          $f(0) = f(2 - 2) = g(2) = 4$



                          $f(1) = f(3 - 2) = g(3) = 9$



                          $f(2) = f(4-2) = g(4) = 16$



                          $f(3) = f(5 - 2) = g(5) = 25$



                          Notice how if you have to calculate values for $f$ in this scenario, you have to massage the input to $f$ a little bit to get it of the form into something that you do know to compute. The general description for this $f$ would be $f(x) = f((x+2)-2) = g(x+2) = (x+2)^2 = x^2 + 4x + 4$.



                          Usually, one starts with an $f$, and then shifts it around to obtain new graphs that obey the properties that they're interested in.






                          share|cite|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            You are correct in supposing that if you had some function $f(x)$, then if you let $c > 0$ and tried to plot $f(x-c)$, you would get the graph of $f(x)$ shifted $c$ to the right. So if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, then $g$ is the graph that results from shifting $f$ $c$ to the right.



                            The part where your confusion is forgivable is where you have a $g$ that is fixed, but you're trying to recover the original $f$. If as you suggest you fix $g(x) = x^2$, fix $c=2$ to get a handle on things, and define $f$ to be such that $g(x)=f(x-2)$, then $f$ must be the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(-2,0)$. (This is so because when you shift such a graph $2$ to the right, you get the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(0,0)$, i.e., $g$.)



                            Let's see this by plotting a few points:



                            $f(-5) = f(-3 - 2) = g(-3) = 9$



                            $f(-4) = f(-2 - 2) = g(-2) = 4$



                            $f(-3) = f(-1 - 2) = g(-1) = 1$



                            $f(-2) = f(0 - 2) = g(0) = 0$



                            $f(-1) = f(1 - 2) = g(1) = 1$



                            $f(0) = f(2 - 2) = g(2) = 4$



                            $f(1) = f(3 - 2) = g(3) = 9$



                            $f(2) = f(4-2) = g(4) = 16$



                            $f(3) = f(5 - 2) = g(5) = 25$



                            Notice how if you have to calculate values for $f$ in this scenario, you have to massage the input to $f$ a little bit to get it of the form into something that you do know to compute. The general description for this $f$ would be $f(x) = f((x+2)-2) = g(x+2) = (x+2)^2 = x^2 + 4x + 4$.



                            Usually, one starts with an $f$, and then shifts it around to obtain new graphs that obey the properties that they're interested in.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            You are correct in supposing that if you had some function $f(x)$, then if you let $c > 0$ and tried to plot $f(x-c)$, you would get the graph of $f(x)$ shifted $c$ to the right. So if $g(x) = f(x-c)$, then $g$ is the graph that results from shifting $f$ $c$ to the right.



                            The part where your confusion is forgivable is where you have a $g$ that is fixed, but you're trying to recover the original $f$. If as you suggest you fix $g(x) = x^2$, fix $c=2$ to get a handle on things, and define $f$ to be such that $g(x)=f(x-2)$, then $f$ must be the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(-2,0)$. (This is so because when you shift such a graph $2$ to the right, you get the $x^2$-looking parabola whose vertex is at $(0,0)$, i.e., $g$.)



                            Let's see this by plotting a few points:



                            $f(-5) = f(-3 - 2) = g(-3) = 9$



                            $f(-4) = f(-2 - 2) = g(-2) = 4$



                            $f(-3) = f(-1 - 2) = g(-1) = 1$



                            $f(-2) = f(0 - 2) = g(0) = 0$



                            $f(-1) = f(1 - 2) = g(1) = 1$



                            $f(0) = f(2 - 2) = g(2) = 4$



                            $f(1) = f(3 - 2) = g(3) = 9$



                            $f(2) = f(4-2) = g(4) = 16$



                            $f(3) = f(5 - 2) = g(5) = 25$



                            Notice how if you have to calculate values for $f$ in this scenario, you have to massage the input to $f$ a little bit to get it of the form into something that you do know to compute. The general description for this $f$ would be $f(x) = f((x+2)-2) = g(x+2) = (x+2)^2 = x^2 + 4x + 4$.



                            Usually, one starts with an $f$, and then shifts it around to obtain new graphs that obey the properties that they're interested in.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Feb 27 '15 at 5:17









                            Ken

                            3,57151728




                            3,57151728




















                                up vote
                                -2
                                down vote













                                Original function: $g(x)= F(x-h)$ -used for horizontal translations only



                                If a positive number were used or plugged in for "$h$", then essentially it would become negative thus "$+$" equals left, to the negatives side or left. Similarly, if a negative number was used, then the two negatives would become a positive, so the graph would move to the positive side or right. This is why horizontal translations are counteractive.






                                share|cite|improve this answer


























                                  up vote
                                  -2
                                  down vote













                                  Original function: $g(x)= F(x-h)$ -used for horizontal translations only



                                  If a positive number were used or plugged in for "$h$", then essentially it would become negative thus "$+$" equals left, to the negatives side or left. Similarly, if a negative number was used, then the two negatives would become a positive, so the graph would move to the positive side or right. This is why horizontal translations are counteractive.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    up vote
                                    -2
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    -2
                                    down vote









                                    Original function: $g(x)= F(x-h)$ -used for horizontal translations only



                                    If a positive number were used or plugged in for "$h$", then essentially it would become negative thus "$+$" equals left, to the negatives side or left. Similarly, if a negative number was used, then the two negatives would become a positive, so the graph would move to the positive side or right. This is why horizontal translations are counteractive.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    Original function: $g(x)= F(x-h)$ -used for horizontal translations only



                                    If a positive number were used or plugged in for "$h$", then essentially it would become negative thus "$+$" equals left, to the negatives side or left. Similarly, if a negative number was used, then the two negatives would become a positive, so the graph would move to the positive side or right. This is why horizontal translations are counteractive.







                                    share|cite|improve this answer














                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                    edited Sep 10 at 6:42









                                    tarit goswami

                                    1,220219




                                    1,220219










                                    answered Sep 10 at 5:34









                                    justthere

                                    1




                                    1



























                                         

                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded















































                                         


                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function ()
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1167386%2funderstanding-the-translation-of-a-graph-horizontally%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                        );

                                        Post as a guest













































































                                        這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                        tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                                        How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                        1st Magritte Awards