It may have occurred to you that function combinations look very much like composite functions. For example, the expression
is a combination of just the function \(f(x)\text{.}\) However, it may also be thought of as the composition \(g(f(x))\text{,}\) where \(g(x) = x^2 + 3x\text{.}\)
In general, this is true: A composite function is really just a “combination of itself”.
Now you would be justified to ask: If combinations and compositions are so similar, why do we have two different names for them? The answer is that, while similar, they represent different things we may do with function outputs, especially in a real context. Here is an example:
As the temperature drops, so does the speed of sound. The function
\begin{equation*}
v = f(T) = 740.4 + 1.34T
\end{equation*}
models the speed of sound (in miles-per-hour) when the temperature is \(T\) degrees Celsius.
On a particular day between \(6{:}00\) P.M. and midnight, suppose the temperature outside is modeled by the function
\begin{equation*}
T = g(h) = 24 - 3h
\end{equation*}
where \(h\) is the number of hours after \(6{:}00\) P.M.
Now, we certainly could create both combinations and compositions using the functions \(f\) and \(g\text{,}\) but what would actually makes sense?
Since we know that \(g\) changes hours into degrees Celsius, and \(f\) changes degrees Celsius into miles-per-hour, it seems natural to use the composition
\begin{equation*}
f(g(h)) = 740.4+1.34(24-3h)
\end{equation*}
to turn hours into miles-per-hour.
It would not be sensible to make a combination of the functions \(f\) and \(g\text{,}\) because they do not use the same input variable. We would have to use the same input value (with the same units) into both functions, but this cannot be.
However, outside of any context, the functions \(f(x) = 740.4 + 1.34x\) and \(g(x) = 24 - 3x\) could be combined in any variety of ways. These combinations, however, would have no applicable meaning in the given story about temperature and the speed of sound.