#1

In transformations, what happens when you enlarge a shape by a scale factor of a negative number?

Ian

Ian

#2

haha what? you can't enlarge something with a negative factor, that would be making it smaller...

#3

you reflect it as well as enlarge it I would assume.

#4

you reflect it as well as enlarge it I would assume.

thats what i thought lol, but wanted to check :S

#5

you reflect it as well as enlarge it I would assume.

yep

#6

it gets smaller ?

#7

make it smaller

#8

Spazz is correct.

You enlarge the lengths from the point of englargment, but in the opposite direction that the original shape is.

You enlarge the lengths from the point of englargment, but in the opposite direction that the original shape is.

#9

so it gets smaller, and is reflected in where?

#10

In transformations, what happens when you enlarge a shape by a scale factor of a negative number?

Ian

Your name is Ian too?

Cool!

I'm terrible at math. Sorry, I'd love to help a fellow Ian.

#11

ah...i see..i remember now, the negative denotes a direction, not size

#12

you reflect it as well as enlarge it I would assume.

That.

#13

ok, got it now i think!

#14

it doesn't get smaller. it gets bigger.

basically apply the scale factor as if it wasn't negative. like 2 or 3, or whatever, then trace the shape and turn the page 180 degrees about the origin and plot again.

basically apply the scale factor as if it wasn't negative. like 2 or 3, or whatever, then trace the shape and turn the page 180 degrees about the origin and plot again.

#15

it gets larger, but is reflected to the other side of the origin...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/shapeih/transformationshrev5.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/maths/shapeih/transformationshrev5.shtml

#16

yeah haha, but the question had a scale factor of -1/2 x)

#17

you reflect it as well as enlarge it I would assume.

Indeed it does.

haha what? you can't enlarge something with a negative factor, that would be making it smaller...

lol. That's when you enlarge by a scale factor that's a decimal... Like 0.5 would be the shape but half the size, and half the distance from the point of enlargement.

yeah haha, but the question had a scale factor of -1/2 x)

Then in that case, it'd be reflected and half the size / distance as the original image from the point of enlargement.

If that makes sense..

#18

Oh sorry, one more question...

how would you rationalise the denominator of 2+ route3 / route 3?

would you times everything by route 3?

how would you rationalise the denominator of 2+ route3 / route 3?

would you times everything by route 3?

#19

Wouldn't it just be 2 then?

I'm probably wrong, I dropped A level maths...

I'm probably wrong, I dropped A level maths...

#20

Wouldn't it just be 2 then?

I'm probably wrong, I dropped A level maths...

haha im revising for my gcse test... TOMMORROW lol ahh well, better get to school early tommorrow to ask then