So when you're doing analytical geometry, why do you have to learn it for graphs where x is a function of y...

So when you're doing analytical geometry, why do you have to learn it for graphs where x is a function of y? Like literally all you have to do is turn the graph 90 degrees and switch places of the x's and y's and you have a conventional graph. Is it useful for something I am missing? Sorry if incorrect terminology.

>why do you have to learn it for graphs where x is a function of y?

Because you are still in high school. Graduate, go to a university and study mathematics and you'll see how geometry is actually done, kid,

Can someone who doesn't have a superiority complex answer the question please?

Oh and by the way, in analytical geometry you are barely ever dealing with functions so you are also wrong on that front.

There is obviously an appliance for it related to functions so your remark is redundant. Also fite me irl.

>Can someone who doesn't have a superiority complex answer the question please?
You're going to be hard pressed to find that on Veeky Forums.

Yea, it's a common trait amongst people who consider themselves intellectual sadly. It's pretty pathetic to do it anonymously though in my humble opinion since nobody can hold you accountable for it.

>Also fite me irl.

This is tough because if I were to knock you the fuck out the police would get me for fucking up a minor but you would have to break my leg or some shit to be prosecuted and even then your parents would get fined or some shit at best.

The point is. Yeah yeah, you are smart. You figured it out that the y=f(x) thing is just an arbitrary choice someone made long ago that is actually interchangeable with many equivalent notions. Good for you.

There is really nothing special about it. It is standarized watered down mathematics for retard kids. That is why I said go to university and learn actual math and then you will not be asking this question.

The point was not that y=f(x) is an arbitrary choice, anyone with half a brain could see that. My point is since y=f(x) is the standardized way, why does analytical geometry change that up even though the end result is the fucking same, just with another variable? My question was, what is the reason they do this? To mess with the less gifted peoples brains?

Because mathematics takes effort and effort in modern elementary education is bad because #nochildleftbehind and if you make some kind of people put too much effort guess what, they will be a child left behind.

We don't want any #childleftbehind. We are a progressive modern society... somehow.

But when you mix things up like this it requires more effort than if you just did it the standardized way, your argument is invalid.

What do you mean, do you have an example of this?

Look at the picture. Also if you really really want to I could dig out a textbook somewhere and take a pic of such an example.

I don't think I've ever seen an example of a graph like that that wasn't generated by an implicit function rather than a function of y.

That's because that graph is not the graph of a function.

So you're saying you can not create a function where x=f(y)?

>This is tough because if I were to knock you the fuck out the police would get me for fucking up a minor but you would have to break my leg or some shit to be prosecuted and even then your parents would get fined or some shit at best.

i cant believe you actually took the time to type this out. are you stupid?

I think it's fairly obvious that he is.

In the context of OP's pic yes. The thing is that in that parabola the equation y=f(x) does not describe a function but the inverse x=f(y) does indeed describe a function.

So now you are saying there are no functions of the form y=f(x)?

Look at OP's pic, you dense dense motherfucker.

The equation of the form y=f(x) that describes that parabola is not a function.

Only that one. THAT ONE. And other similar ones aswell but I would not want to blow your mind.

I am aware that you can not describe that parabola with the form y=f(x). And nevermind I see now that your original statement was exactly this. I thought you were saying that you can not create any function of the form x=f(y). My bad.

Yeah and now you know how since my first post the answer was staring you right in the face.

Why do you start treating x as a function of y? Because for this parabolas this is the only way to study them as a function.

Why? Because from this perspective for each y there is one and only one x so that x=f(y) but if you did it the usual way of y=f(x) you would see that a single x can match with 2 y's.

Explicitly, this would be the case for every x that was not the vertex of the parabola.

And now you made me spell it out for you and learned nothing. Good for all of us.

Please finish high school before you talk down to people.

Yes, it could be the graph of a function, you don't know enough math to contribute.

Congratulations on missing the point.

I guess the people in this thread will never for the life of them understand why you would sometimes want x being a function of y instead of the usual y being a function of x.

I wonder why, why would be want to work with functions instead of relations that do not satisfy the conditions of a functions.

I think the answer is that nobody knows. Nobody knows! Maybe there is no reason. Caveman Decartes found a rock carved by the gods that said

>Nigga, x=f(y) and let there be light
and Decartes said yeah my nigga.

MY NIGGA.

I'm out.

So what you're actually saying is that you're clueless.

>analytic geometry
>so a generalization of algebraic geometry to the analytic case? :^)

Youre asking why you learn something in school. It's a stupid question. Its clear youre underage, get over it.