I don't understand what you are saying. From which context do you think my comment is from? I know little of the math, but have read a number of times that intervals are invarient. It is possible to have intervals invarient so simply
because of the relationship between time and length.
below is from an ealier post of mine that explains what I mean.
"Right now, it looks like time is negative in that equation simply because once time is equated to length the last part of the relationship is it is opposite. Time of course is not length (and not measured the same), if I'm allowed to say it is equal to but opposite of length, then it looks like once the units are the same (equal), the only missing part of the relationship is it must be opposite. I hope that's not too goofy."
I understand the term "inverse" to be the same as "equal but opposite". This all comes from knowing that intervals are invarient.
Looks like there is a root word in there.
If you read my posts in this thread, it should be clear that the comment "The sign is negative because that's what keeps transforms Lorentz invarient."
But at least we agree on the function, invariance.