MHB Determining one to one and finding formula for inverse help needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Snicklefritz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Inverse
Snicklefritz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a problem I am trying to solve but no example provided can clarify the steps. I find this to be the problem with math examples, they provide problems but utilize same numbers so people who are not as math savvy such as I cannot figure the steps out as easily as they are provided. Anyway, enough complaining. My problem is determing one to one and also finding the inverse formula.

f(x)= 5x-3 over 2x-1

I am coming up with a final solution of f^-1(x)= x+3 over 5-2x

Is this right?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Snicklefritz said:
I have a problem I am trying to solve but no example provided can clarify the steps. I find this to be the problem with math examples, they provide problems but utilize same numbers so people who are not as math savvy such as I cannot figure the steps out as easily as they are provided. Anyway, enough complaining. My problem is determing one to one and also finding the inverse formula.

f(x)= 5x-3 over 2x-1

I am coming up with a final solution of f^-1(x)= x+3 over 5-2x

Is this right?
Hi Snicklefritz, and welcome to MHB!

If you are given a function $y = f(x)$ then to get the inverse function you need to find $x$ in terms of $y$. So in this case, starting from $y = \dfrac{5x-3}{2x-1}$ you get $(2x-1)y = 5x-3$. Then rearrange that as $2xy - 5x = y - 3$, so that $x = \dfrac{y-3}{2y-5}.$ That tells you the inverse function as a function of $y$. If you want it as a function of $x$ then you simply replace the $y$s by $x$s, getting $f^{-1}(x) = \dfrac{x-3}{2x-5}$ – similar to what you had, but not quite the same. (Wondering)

If a function has an inverse then it is automatically one-to-one, so you don't need to do any further work there.
 
We are given:

$$f(x)=\frac{5x-3}{2x-1}$$

We can see this is a one-to-one function by observing:

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(5-\frac{1}{2x-1}\right)$$

This is simply a transformation of the function:

$$g(x)=\frac{1}{x}$$

which we know to be one-to-one on its domain.

To check to see if you have found the correct inverse, we can use the functional identity:

$$f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right)=f^{-1}\left(f(x)\right)=x$$

So, using this, we find:

$$f\left(f^{-1}(x)\right)=\frac{5\left(\frac{x+3}{5-2x}\right)-3}{2\left(\frac{x+3}{5-2x}\right)-1}=\frac{5(x+3)-3(5-2x)}{2(x+2)-(5-2x)}=\frac{5x+15-15+6x}{2x+4-5+2x}=\frac{11x}{4x-1}\ne x$$

So, you can see you have not computed the inverse correctly.
 
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