Domain of the identity function after inverse composition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the domain restrictions of composite functions, specifically the identity function resulting from the composition of inverse functions. Participants explore the implications of these restrictions in terms of the functions' definitions and their graphical representations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether domain restrictions for the composition of inverse functions behave similarly to those for other composite functions, providing specific examples with functions f(x) and g(x).
  • Another participant asserts that the composition f(g(x)) is only defined on (0,1] and g(f(x)) is defined on [0,∞), emphasizing that functions can only be applied where they are defined.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the domains of the compositions, confirming the earlier assertion about the domains of f ° g and g ° f.
  • There is a request for geometric or graphical applications related to the domain restrictions and their implications for understanding the functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the domain restrictions of the composite functions but express uncertainty regarding the geometric implications and whether there are additional insights to be gained from graphical representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the domains of the functions and their compositions depend on the specific restrictions applied to the original functions, which may not be fully explored in the provided resources.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying function composition, particularly those interested in the properties of inverse functions and their graphical interpretations.

Derrick Palmiter
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
Hi, I'm struggling to understand something. Does domain restriction work the same way for composition of inverse functions as it does for other composite functions? I would assume it does, but the end result seems counter-intuitive. For example:

If I have the function f(x) = 1/(1+x), with the domain restriction x > 0 and
g(x) = (1-x)/x, with the domain restriction 0 < x < 1 ...

Then these functions are inverses. If I compose them to test this, then of course, I get the identity function in both cases...but do I need to specify a domain restriction on f(g(x)) and g(f(x))? I believe, that if I do so, then the domain of both composites should be 0 < x < 1. Firstly, am I correct, and secondly, what does this actually mean...in terms of the functions being inverses? If we were to graph the composites, would we just have a line segment? If the answer is yes, does this have any affect on the inverses operation upon each other?

Thanks for any help or insight anyone can give, or any other similar examples I could investigate.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
A function can only be applied where it is defined. So ##f \circ g## is only defined on ##(0,1]## and ##g \circ f## is only defined on ##[0,\infty)##. If - as in your example - all domains are subsets of one common space and ## f\, : \,A \rightarrow f(A)## and ##g\, : \,B \rightarrow g(B)## then ##f \circ g## is defined on ##B## and ##g \circ f## is defined on ##A##. However, there can be further restrictions to the codomains, as ##f## is restricted to ##g(B) \cap A## in the composition ##f \circ g## and ##g## is restricted to ##f(A) \cap B## in the composition ##g \circ f##. In your example we had ##f(A)=B## and ##g(B)=A##, so no further restrictions to the compositions.

The simple rule is, that all steps have to be defined.
 
Thank you very much. The precalculus book I'm using doesn't explain this question of the composition of domains very clearly. So, just to make sure I understand, the domain of f ° g in my example would be (0,1] and of g ° f would be [0, ∞). (I know that's how you prefaced your explanation, forgive me, I'm just a sucker for certainty.)

Is there any geometric/graphical application of this fact that I should be aware of that I may be missing? Or perhaps a geometric explanation of the same reality?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K