Inverse Function: Showing g ''(x) = 3/2 g(x)^2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of showing that for a differentiable function f with a specific derivative, the second derivative of its inverse function g, defined as g = f^-1, satisfies the equation g ''(x) = 3/2 g(x)^2. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and exploration of inverse calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests starting with the integral definition of f and applying the chain rule to derive g' and g''.
  • Another participant questions the correctness of the previous derivations, noting potential omissions and errors in the simplification process.
  • A later reply agrees with the questioning participant's findings, indicating they reached the same conclusion independently.
  • Further discussion highlights confusion regarding the simplification of terms and the potential miscopying of the problem statement.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the implications of their results and the accuracy of the mathematical expressions involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the derivations presented. While some agree on the results reached, there is no consensus on the methods used or the validity of the steps taken, leaving the discussion unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions and potential errors in the mathematical steps, particularly regarding the simplification of expressions and the interpretation of the problem statement.

trap
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I have no idea how to do this question, can anyone provide some help?

Suppose f is differentiable with derivative f '(x) = (1+x^3) ^(1/2).
If g = f^-1, show that g ''(x) = 3/2 g(x)^2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
These sort of problems are fun, inverse calculus.

Write f(x) = int[0,x, (1+t^3) ^(1/2),dt]

Set the integral equal to u so that you have:

f(x) = u

Take the inverse of both sides:

x = g(u)

Differentiate wrt x, using the chain rule:

(dg/du)(du/dx) = 1

Using FTC, du/dx = (1+x^3) ^(1/2)

Then dg/du = (1+x^3) ^(-1/2)

but remember x =g(u)

So g' = (1+g^3) ^(-1/2)

differentiate again (remember to use the chain rule):

g'' = (-1/2)(3g)(g')(1+g^3) ^(-3/2)

g'' = (-1/2)(3g)(1+g^3) ^(-1/2))(1+g^3) ^(-3/2)

Which simplifies to your expression. I am sorry to have deprived you of solving this wonderful problem, but it is pretty difficult to get started on a problem like this if you do not know where to begin.

I invented this method to to derive an expression for the integral int[0,x, 1/t, dt] .

:smile:
 
wow, thank you so much, you are amazing
 
if f '(x) = dy/dx = (1+x^3) ^(1/2). where x = g(y).
If g = f^-1, show that g ''(x) = 3/2 g(x)^2. \\

this seems incorrect, as shown by the previous post, which also seems however slightly incorrect.

i.e. dx/dy = 1/(dy/dx). so dx/dy = (1+x^3)^(-1/2). so d^2x/dy^2, by chain rule,

= (-1/2)(1+x^3)^(-3/2) (3x^2) dx/dy = (-1/2)(1+x^3)^(-3/2) (3x^2)(1+x^3)^(-1/2)

= (-1/2) (1+x^3)^(-2) (3x^2)

= (-3/2)[1+g(y)^3)^(-2)] (g(y)^2). (the previous post omitted the power 2.)

in particular all the integration in the previous post is entirely superfluous.

now i may easily be missing something here, but my problem is that now I do not see how this simplifies to (3/2) [g(y)]^2, since it does not appear to me that

[1+g(y)^3)^(-2)] = -1, i.e. that


1 + x^3 = -1, i.e.that x = cuberoot(-2), for all x.

what am i missing?
 
You are correct, Mathwonk, as far as I'm concerned: I independently reached exactly the same answer as you.
 
thanks, Matt; I guess you are kindly giving me credit for what I meant to write, even if one of my braces is misplaced in the last line.

I probably meant [1+g(y)^3)]^(-2) = -1, so the left side is a square while the right side is negative.

the point is the problem was probably miscopied from the source.
 
we had the same issue, and it roughly stated all x satisfied some polynomial relation, i didn't check the details - perhaps i should stop using the word exactly when i don't mean it...
 
I assumed you quit reading my details as soon as you saw we raised the same point and found the same result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K