Sunday 10 August 2008

Gradient

Hmm. I can see, from Matt's comment below, that I need to be a bit more specific. well it's early doors and though I'm giving it 110%, it's not always easy to see where I should pitch or focus this blog. I'm sure Matt will be delighted to know that I'm just going to let it evolve...

But a word on gradient.

Take a graph.

Any graph.

Put a straight line in it.

Any angle.



Take the left hand side of the line. What are its co-ordinates? In the picture above, the line begins at point (1,1). From that point, call it A, the line goes along and up. As you move along the line its co-ordinates rise in value. It moves along the x-axis and the y-axis.

Gradient is simply a measure of how y changes as you change x values. In other words, steepness.

Look at point B. It is at (5,4). From A to B you have gone 4 x-units along and 3 y-units up. On this line, wherever you are on the graph, if you go 4 x units along you will ALWAYS go 3 y units up.

Gradient, which is a general statement of this quantity, is calculated through this difference between the co-ordinates at A and B.

We divide the difference in y across the two points, by the difference in x.

y2-y1/x2-x1, meaning: the y co-ordinate of point B minus the y co-ordinate of point A, then divided by the same thing done for the x co-ordinates.

In this case,

= 4-1/5-1

= 3/4

The gradient is "three quarters".

In the picture below the line is slanting downwards. This will give it a negative gradient. Same method though.



Horizontal lines have a gradient of 0.

Vertical lines are a tricky one. If you think of a line going straight up and down, and try to apply this logic to it, you end up with a weird division.

Say you've got a vertical line through points (5,0) and up to (5, 5). If you do the y2-y1/x2-x1 calculation to find the gradient, you end up doing 5/0. You can't divide by 0, so you can't get a result. There isn't a gradient for a vertical line.

Another way of looking at it is that a vertical line cannot be a result of y = f(x) because it would be one-many - ie it's not a function.

2 comments:

Matt M said...

Heh. In my defence, I did pretty much know what it meant - I Just had to look it up to make sure. But a great post nonetheless.

If you're aiming to write a blog accessible even to people with my poor grasp of mathematics then may I suggest the use of sockpuppets. :-)

Bill Haydon said...

Thanks, Matt.

I don't know how to draw sockpuppets: even graphs is proving tricky! But if I did know, I probably would.