My analysis text defines inverse functions only for bijections.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But [itex] y = e^{x} [/itex] is not bijective, so according to my book it's inverse ([itex] ln x [/itex]) wouldn't be defined? Am I missing something or is my textbook just plain wrong?

I use the text by Bartle and Sherbert.

Thanks!

BiP

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Function must be a bijection for its inverse to exist?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Function must bijection | Date |
---|---|

I Integrate a function over a closed circle-like contour around an arbitrary point on a torus | Saturday at 12:51 PM |

B Function rules question | Saturday at 9:49 AM |

I Looking for additional material about limits and distributions | Feb 17, 2018 |

I Must functions really have interval domains for derivatives? | Jul 26, 2017 |

Help me prove that functions u and v must be constant in D | Jun 13, 2004 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**