- #1
hb1547
- 35
- 0
Sorry for the poorly-worded title.
I help tutor kids with pre-calculus, and they're working inverse functions now. They use the "horizontal line test" to see if a function will have an inverse or not by seeing visually if it's one-to-one.
I was thinking about what that might imply. If a function passes the horizontal line test (let's assume it's domain is ℝ and that it's continuous everywhere), then it must not have any extremum, since then it'd fail the test. So this would imply that:
[tex]f'(x) \le 0 \hspace{3pt}\mathrm{or }\hspace{3pt} f'(x) \ge 0 \hspace{3pt} \forall x[/tex]
I'm wondering if this is always true, and so if it's possible to prove that a bijective function must have a derivative that's either zero or positive/negative everywhere, and I'm wondering if the converse is also true.
I'm more of a physics-guy than a math-guy, but I do find math interesting and these are the types of questions that I like to think about. Any thoughts?
I help tutor kids with pre-calculus, and they're working inverse functions now. They use the "horizontal line test" to see if a function will have an inverse or not by seeing visually if it's one-to-one.
I was thinking about what that might imply. If a function passes the horizontal line test (let's assume it's domain is ℝ and that it's continuous everywhere), then it must not have any extremum, since then it'd fail the test. So this would imply that:
[tex]f'(x) \le 0 \hspace{3pt}\mathrm{or }\hspace{3pt} f'(x) \ge 0 \hspace{3pt} \forall x[/tex]
I'm wondering if this is always true, and so if it's possible to prove that a bijective function must have a derivative that's either zero or positive/negative everywhere, and I'm wondering if the converse is also true.
I'm more of a physics-guy than a math-guy, but I do find math interesting and these are the types of questions that I like to think about. Any thoughts?