Deriving Inverse Hyperbolic Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter MattL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Inverse
MattL
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Just a quick question

Can anyone give a method to derive arcsinh(x) from the definition of sinh(x)?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
\sinh{x} = \frac{e^x - e^{-x}}{2}.

Assuming the existence of arcsinh, for every x we must have:

sinh(arcsinh(x)) = x.

For simplicity, let arcsinh(x) = z, so that

\sinh(z) = x

<=>

e^z - e^{-z} = 2x

<=>

(e^z)^2 - 1 = e^z \cdot 2x

That's a quadratic equation in e^z, which can be easily solved.
 
thanks

haven't done that since a-level and had forgotten it completely!
 
Since it's a quadratic equation,u'll need to specify the domain.Note that the direct function is defined on all \mathbb{R},while I'm sure u can't say the same about its inverse.

Daniel.
 
I think arcsinh is ok on all of \mathbb{R}
With arccosh x has to be greater than or equal to one, but I can't remember the conditions for arctanh
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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