Invertible function y=f(x), x=f^(-1)(y) with two linear segments and smooth transition

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding an invertible function y=f(x) that represents two linear segments with a smooth transition at a point T. The goal is to model the force-displacement relationship for a cracked solid, where the stiffness changes as the crack closes. Suggestions include using sigmoid-like functions or integrating peak-shaped functions to achieve the desired smooth transition. A piecewise definition of the inverse function is proposed, dividing the intervals into three segments to maintain invertibility. The use of cubic splines is recommended for ensuring a smooth connection between the linear segments.
smartscience
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm looking to find a function y=f(x), invertible to x=f(y) and written in terms of elementary functions and operations, that can represent a straight line Ax+B where x<<T and another straight line Cx+D where x>>T, where T is the x position where the two lines would cross. In the region where x is approximately T, there should be a smooth transition between the two functions. For what it's worth, my intention is to get a functional representation of the force-displacement relationship for a cracked solid, which becomes stiffer when the crack is closed.

Some suitable functions can be found by integrating any sigmoid-like function, or equivalently integrating any peak-shaped function twice. The width of the peak or sigmoid then becomes the width of the transition from one line to the other. Similarly, a sigmoid function could be used as a weighting factor for terms Ax+B and Cx+D, e.g.

y=(Ax+B)(1/(1+exp(x))) + (Cx+D)(1/(1+exp(-x)))

Simpler functions like

y=ln(exp(Ax+B) + exp(Cx+D))

also spring to mind. However, these functions don't appear to be invertible either with my mathematical knowledge as it stands, nor with the computer algebra package Maxima.

Does anyone know any solutions to this kind of problem please? If this is a well-known problem, some terms to search for on would be appreciated. If there's no obvious solution, I'd even welcome just some suggestions for sigmoid functions that are more likely to yield an invertible function when used in this way.

Thanks in anticipation, Joe
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Very late response, but in case someone else is interested, this is what I would do. Instead of dividing the interval into two pieces, around x = T, I would divide it into three pieces: ##-\infty < A < T < B < \infty##.
The inverse, ##f^{-1}## could be defined in a piecewise fashion on the three separate intervals ##(-\infty, A), (A, B), \text{ and } (B, \infty)##. On the left interval you could define the inverse as y = ax + b, and on the right interval as y = cx + d. Notice that a and A etc. are different numbers. A cubic spline could be used to provide a smooth connection between the two outer parts of the graph.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top