Rasmus makes this claim:
“If I change the value of \(n\) in \(y = mx + n\), the line shifts, but the number of zeros always stays the same.”
a) Test the claim when \(m = 1.5\). Does changing \(n\) change the number of zeros?
b) Test the claim when \(m = 0\). Explain why the claim fails in this case.
c) Can a line, even one that is not the graph of a function of \(x\), intersect the x-axis at exactly two different points? Justify your answer.
Hints
- Compare several choices of \(n\), including \(0\), while holding the slope fixed.
- Consider separately what a nonzero slope and a zero slope imply about x-axis intersections.
- Recall what line is determined by two distinct points that both lie on the x-axis.
Solution
1. For part a, with \(m = 1.5\), a zero satisfies \(1.5x + n = 0\). Thus \(x = -\frac{n}{1.5}\), which gives exactly one zero for every real value of \(n\). The claim is true in this case.
2. For part b, when \(m = 0\), the equation is \(y = n\). If \(n \neq 0\), the horizontal line does not meet the x-axis, so there are no zeros. If \(n = 0\), the line is the x-axis itself, so every real \(x\) is a zero. The number of zeros can therefore change from none to infinitely many.
3. For part c, two distinct points determine exactly one line. If a line intersects the x-axis at two different points, it must be the x-axis. Then it has infinitely many intersection points with the x-axis, not exactly two.
Answer
a) No. When \(m = 1.5\), there is exactly one zero for every real \(n\).
b) The claim is false when \(m = 0\): if \(n \neq 0\), there are no zeros; if \(n = 0\), there are infinitely many zeros.
c) No. A line through two different points on the x-axis must be the x-axis itself, so it has infinitely many such intersection points.