Finding inverse of a function involving ln.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the inverse of the function f(x) = 5 + ln(-2x + 3). Participants are exploring the properties of logarithmic functions and their inverses, particularly in the context of plotting and verifying the relationship between a function and its inverse.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the process of finding the inverse by manipulating the equation and swapping variables. There is a focus on the geometric interpretation of inverses and the verification of their properties through plotting.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants questioning the validity of their approaches and the results obtained from plotting the functions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions and properties of inverses, but no consensus has been reached on the correctness of the inverse found.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of using specific software (Maple) for plotting, which may influence the interpretation of the results. Participants also reflect on their understanding of the geometric aspects of inverses, indicating potential gaps in their reasoning.

sp09ta
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
1. Plot f(x)=5+ln(-2x+3), and its inverse.



2. I know the inverse of ln(x) is exp(1)^(x)., and to find the inverse of a function, solve for x then swap the x and y.



3. y=5+ln(-2x+3)
y-5=ln(-2x+3)
exp(1)^(y-5)=(-2x+3)
(-1/2)*[exp(1)^(y-5)-3]=x

y=(-1/2)*[exp(1)^(x-5)-3]

However when I plot these functions using maple, I notice that they are definitely not inverse... :( what am i doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good (although it beats me why you write exp(1)^p instead of just exp(p) or e^p).
How can you "see" that they are not inverses?
If you plug x = (-1/2)*[exp(y-5)-3]=x into 5+ln(-2x+3), you get y right?
 
Oh, I guess my theory on the geometry of inverses was a little off. I write exp(1)^p because its the maple command that I was using. Thanks for your comment!
 
Hehe, you're welcome.
Sometimes all you need is a little reminder on the definitions :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K