Talk:Inverse function rule: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:47, 30 June 2003

Latest revision as of 01:29, 9 March 2024

(24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance=mid}}

}}

Old arguments deleted. Look `em up in the history pages.

Line 15 ⟶ 18:

Best Wishes [[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]

Te one "proof" of course assumes differentiability of the inverse, and in showing differentiability of the inverse you will have found the derivative, so is more useful as an aide memoire than a proof. I have made some slight adjustments and added a statement about the differentiability of the inverse which would seem to be required.

[[User:CSMR|CSMR]] 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-----

Line 89 ⟶ 95:

:: Newton and Leibnitz `screwed around' with this, and I doubt they could be called `clumsy'. Berkeley was a crap philosopher I agree. He had very strange beliefs especially where science was concerned. In particular he believed that science should be concerned purely with observing and cataloguing the world, and that under no circumstances should any attempt be made to explain it. For this reason he hated the success of Newton who was very good at explanations. He also thought that science was 'getting uppity' and trampling on the toes of religion. His article "The Analyst" was nothing short of a full blooded attack on mathematics and science. He found one weak point in the calculus and exploited it for all he was worth. Much as I dislike the motivations and philosophy of the man, the weakness he pointed out was real enough, although in my opinion the retreat to formalism which it caused was an overreaction.

[[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]

::: Thanks for the info. It is interesting. I wouldn't call them clumsy at all. Btw, it's nice to see that we agree on many things. (Regarding Berk and the reaction.)-[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]

::: Any mechanism of a scientific theory can be interpreted as a cataloguing of observations (ambiguity aside) so if Newton was "good at explanations" which are opposed to "cataloguings and observings" these explanations could not have been scientific theories but interpretations of scientific theories, so you are saying that Newton was very good at the interpretation of scientific theory, in particular very good showing that scientific theory "explains" rather than describes, and very good therefore at refuting Berkeley's idealism?

[[User:CSMR|CSMR]] 07:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

* You might be right about the explanation of differentiation. I felt that something needed to be said - a one sentence brief description of some sort. But it is really hard to write a good one. If you can write a better one - go for it.

Line 97 ⟶ 109:

:: What do you think is missing. [[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]

::: A decent-size section which explicitly shows the relationship. Something akin to my "proofs" you were refering to earlier. You asked what from the old should be added back in...

:::** Not the one with the error in it I trust. I think your idea of describing the geometric picture was a better one. In particular some mention of the fact that the graphs inverse functions are reflected in the line y = x , and hence the m₁m₂ = 1 relationship for slopes of lines reflected in the line y = x implies the result pretty strongly.

:::Also, the first two formulas that aren't indented, that's been distracting. I don't know what it is exactly, maybe it's just indenting, maybe putting the discriptions before, maybe I just don't like seeing formulas so small being so prominent.

:::** If you are talking about the description of dy/dx and dx/dy then I agree they dont look good. It is the fault of the way wikipedia typesets maths inline.

:::** I really wanted to put a box around the formula

:::::<math>\frac{dx}{dy}\,.\, \frac{dy}{dx} = 1 </math>

::::which is what the page is all about. However my initial attempts didn't work so I left it. I really would like to put a box around this though.

:::Very minor; I don't care, really: I'm not used to the dot. Is it really better to have it, or to omit it?

:::** feel free to kill it if you want. I used it simply as a spacer because things looked cluttered without it.

::: I think it's clearer without, but that's probably because I'm more acquanted with it's abscence. But then again, that's because it usually is absent. If, by itself, it's affect is purely a conditioned effect, then I would argue that it's omission is more clear, simply because it's one less symbol. -[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]

== Inverse of y = e^x? ==

Isn't the inverse of y = e^x y = ln(x) and not x = ln(y)? -beasty401

:If, by any chance you are still looking at this page: both are valid. x = ln(y) describes the exact same ''relationship'' as y = e^x, though, whereas y = ln(x) describes the inverse relationship (x and y swapped). When working with inverses, you may swap the x and y at the beginning, or you may swap them at the end. Either way works. Not ever swapping them works too, depending on your goal. --[[Special:Contributions/69.91.95.139|69.91.95.139]] ([[User talk:69.91.95.139|talk]]) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Completely Empty ==

This is disapointing, almost nothing is here, this is not even the dust of the tip of the iceberg. No theorems of inverse functions are here, nothing is mentioned about the matrix derivatives, its inverse, nonsingularity of the matrix, the one to one property related to the nonsingularity, boundness and openness of the inverse matrix and thus the inverse derivative of the function and the function itself, the continuity of both functions, inverse matrix of the derivative function and the derivative is no where to be found, and the list goes on. Truely disapointed.

I also highly urge that Euler's notation should be inroduced and the concepts be developed using it.--[[User:Gustav Ulsh Iler|Gustav Ulsh Iler]] ([[User talk:Gustav Ulsh Iler|talk]]) 03:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

------

This is my first time encountering this page. The material is helpful, but lacks citations and seems like a loose end. I propose paring it down and adding it as a subsection to the page on the inverse function theorem. What do folks think about that?

Also, what are some good references for this material? I think that a reference in the spirit of spivak or rudin would be good, in addition to a more elementary source.

-[[user:Tomhallward|Tomhallward]]([[User talk:Tomhallward|talk]])

== Notation is extremely confusing ==

Since there are two variables in the introductory section, there should be at least one notation that refers explicitly to which variables the derivative is with respect to. Since this is an introductory page, writers should not assume readers will pick up on implicit (really, lazy) notation. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.84.199.178|68.84.199.178]] ([[User talk:68.84.199.178#top|talk]]) 05:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->