Merspi promotes a strong editing culture. We strive to keep our questions and answers well-presented
|
1
|
The dilation here, is apparently 4 Meanwhile:
This has a dilation of 1/4 When describing transformations from 1/x, why is the first statement I gave a true description, since the (1/x) part is your starting point and thus the 'inverting' of the second statement does not have to be performed because it has been accounted for by the starting point which is an inverse? |
|||
|
|
2
|
Not exactly sure what the answer is (or the question TBH), so throwing a wild guess.
so there's a dilation factor of 4...... |
||
|
|
Remember to vote up questions and answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)
facebook |
twitter |
feedback always welcome |
want to do business with merspi?
