Talk:Inverse function rule: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:48, 4 May 2006

Latest revision as of 01:29, 9 March 2024

(19 intermediate revisions by 12 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 16 ⟶ 19:

Best Wishes [[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]

There isTe one "proof" thereof atcourse the moment, but it is not really a proof, unless you assumeassumes differentiability of the inverse, and in showing differentiability of the inverse you will have found the derivative, so anyis suchmore argumentuseful isas unnecessaryan aide memoire than a proof. I mayhave adjustmade some slight adjustments and added a statement about the wordingdifferentiability of the inverse which would seem to slightlybe hererequired.

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

Line 119 ⟶ 122:

:::** 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-->