Can a Non-Invertible Function Become Invertible in Certain Intervals?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether a function that is not invertible can be considered invertible when restricted to certain intervals. Participants explore the implications of domain restrictions on the invertibility of functions, particularly using the example of the quadratic function f(x) = x².

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a function can be considered invertible if its domain is restricted appropriately, using f(x) = x² as an example.
  • One participant argues that the domain is integral to the function's definition, suggesting that different restrictions lead to different functions.
  • Another participant confirms that f: [0,4] → [0,16], x ↦ x² is invertible due to the specified domain, while noting the importance of the codomain.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology, with one participant questioning the use of "inversible" and suggesting "invertible" as the correct term.
  • Another participant humorously questions the inconsistency in the English language regarding the terms "reversible" and "inversible."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that restricting the domain can lead to a function being considered invertible, but there is no consensus on the terminology used to describe this property.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of functions and the need for appropriate codomain specifications for invertibility. The discussion does not resolve the nuances of terminology.

ZeroPivot
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
can a function that's not inversable be inversible in certain interwalls. is it ok to say its inversable in this specific intervall or can't the function ever be called inversible?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, but technically, it wouldn't be the same function.

For example, [itex]f(x)= x^2[/itex]is not "invertible" because it is neither "one to one" nor "onto". However, if we restrict the domain to the "non-negative real numbers" then its inverse is [itex]\sqrt{x}[/itex]. If we restrict the domain to the "non-positive real numbers" then its inverse is [itex]-\sqrt{x}[/itex].

However, the domain of a function is as much a part of its definition as the "formula". That is, "[itex]f(x)= x^2[/itex], for x any real number", "[itex]g(x)=x^2[/itex], for x any non-negative real number", and [itex]h(x)= x^2[/itex], for x any non-negative real number" are three different functions. The first does not have an inverse, the last two do.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, but technically, it wouldn't be the same function.

For example, [itex]f(x)= x^2[/itex]is not "invertible" because it is neither "one to one" nor "onto". However, if we restrict the domain to the "non-negative real numbers" then its inverse is [itex]\sqrt{x}[/itex]. If we restrict the domain to the "non-positive real numbers" then its inverse is [itex]-\sqrt{x}[/itex].

However, the domain of a function is as much a part of its definition as the "formula". That is, "[itex]f(x)= x^2[/itex], for x any real number", "[itex]g(x)=x^2[/itex], for x any non-negative real number", and [itex]h(x)= x^2[/itex], for x any non-negative real number" are three different functions. The first does not have an inverse, the last two do.

can i say function y=x^2 is inversible for x E [0 ,4] ?
 
Yes, the function
[tex]f: [0,4]\to [0,16],\ x\mapsto x^2[/tex]
is an invertible function because of the domain that has been specified (also it needs to have the right codomain, or it won't be an onto function, but that's more of a technicality that is washed away by restricting the codomain to whatever the range is)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
ZeroPivot said:
can i say function y=x^2 is inversible for x E [0 ,4] ?
"Inversible" is not a word - the one you want is invertible.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
So why is "reversible" a word and not "revertible"?
 
Mark44 said:
"Inversible" is not a word - the one you want is invertible.

Possibly because the adjectives invertible and reversible come from the verbs to invert and to reverse, respectively.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
23K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K