What is the inverse function of f(x) = c/x^(1/n)?

  • Thread starter roupam
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Prime
In summary: Hence, f(f^{-1}(x)) = x = f^{-1}(f(x))In summary, Roupam has written a paper and is seeking comments on it. Some suggestions were made for clarification and corrections were pointed out. There was also a discussion about the use of "i" as an index variable and the correctness of the inverse formula. However, there seemed to be a mistake in the calculations and it was suggested to show them step-by-step for clarification.
  • #1
roupam
4
0
Hi,

I have written a paper (attached)
I would be happy to get comments on it

Thanks
Roupam

PS.
(Since, there is no independent research in the math section, I have posted here)
 

Attachments

  • fractional_parts.pdf
    244.7 KB · Views: 258
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
On p. 2, in your equation for zeta, i is an unfortunate choice for an index variable since you're working with complex numbers. I suggest k.

On p. 3, "for some constant B and Li(x)" is unclear; it looks like you're making Li(x) constant. Reword if possible. Also "Cramérs conjecture" should be "Cramér's conjecture". (There are a number of minor grammar errors here and throughout, especially overuse of the comma; I'll omit those.)

On p. 6, your functions f and f^{-1} are not inverses. This may be fatal.
 
  • #3
CRGreathouse said:
On p. 2, in your equation for zeta, i is an unfortunate choice for an index variable since you're working with complex numbers. I suggest k.

On p. 3, "for some constant B and Li(x)" is unclear; it looks like you're making Li(x) constant. Reword if possible. Also "Cramérs conjecture" should be "Cramér's conjecture". (There are a number of minor grammar errors here and throughout, especially overuse of the comma; I'll omit those.)

Being a Comp. Sc. Student, I have the habit of using "i" :smile:
Thanks, I will replace it with something like "a", or "r" etc.

On p. 6, your functions f and f^{-1} are not inverses. This may be fatal.

Can you please tell me why they are not inverses ?
Isnt the inverse formula correct?
 
  • #4
roupam said:
Being a Comp. Sc. Student, I have the habit of using "i" :smile:
Thanks, I will replace it with something like "a", or "r" etc.

Fine habit, 90% of the time...

roupam said:
Can you please tell me why they are not inverses ?
Isnt the inverse formula correct?

You basically want
f(f^{-1}(x)) = x = f^{-1}(f(x))
for all x, and neither is the case.
 
  • #5
CRGreathouse said:
You basically want
f(f^{-1}(x)) = x = f^{-1}(f(x))
for all x, and neither is the case.

Well, it seems right to me...

f^{-1}(x) = c^n/x^n
f(x) = c/x^(1/n)

which gives,
f(f^{-1}(x)) = x = f^{-1}(f(x))

And, I am not using the complex roots of x^(1/n), which I stated in the Preliminaries section of the paper that we are only working with positive reals...

Thanks
Roupam
 
  • #6
roupam said:
Well, it seems right to me...

f^{-1}(x) = c^n/x^n
f(x) = c/x^(1/n)

which gives,
f(f^{-1}(x)) = x = f^{-1}(f(x))

No. If you show your calculations step-by-step we can show you where you're making a mistake.
 
  • #7
CRGreathouse said:
No. If you show your calculations step-by-step we can show you where you're making a mistake.

Ok, here goes...

f^{-1}(x) = c^n/x^n
f(x) = c/x^(1/n)

which gives,
f(f^{-1}(x)) = c/(f^{-1}(x))^(1/n) = c/(c^n/x^n)^(1/n) = c/(c/x) = x
Again,
f^{-1}(f(x)) = f^{-1}(c/x^(1/n)) = c^n/(c/x^(1/n))^n = c^n/(c^n/x) = x
 

Related to What is the inverse function of f(x) = c/x^(1/n)?

1. What is the purpose of the paper "On Prime Differences"?

The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyze the mathematical concept of prime differences, which refers to the difference between consecutive prime numbers. The author aims to provide insights and new findings on this topic.

2. What is the significance of studying prime differences?

Studying prime differences can help us better understand the distribution and patterns of prime numbers, which have been a subject of fascination and intrigue for mathematicians throughout history. It can also have practical applications in fields such as cryptography and number theory.

3. What methodology was used in this paper?

The author used a combination of analytical and computational methods to study prime differences. This includes analyzing existing mathematical theories and formulas, as well as using computer programs to generate and analyze prime numbers and their differences.

4. What are some key findings of the paper?

The paper presents several new findings on prime differences, including a formula for calculating the number of prime differences within a given range, as well as the identification of certain patterns and regularities in the distribution of prime differences. The paper also discusses the relationship between prime differences and other mathematical concepts, such as twin primes and Mersenne primes.

5. How does this paper contribute to the field of mathematics?

This paper adds to the existing body of knowledge on prime numbers and their differences, providing new insights and discoveries that can further our understanding of this complex and mysterious topic. It also opens up potential avenues for further research and exploration in this area of mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
821
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
789
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
917
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
811
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
807
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top