Yuqing said:
I have a simple problem here, some confusion on my part.
I've just started learning about functions and their inverses. We've used traditional f^(-1) to denote the inverse. But recently, after learning real life applications, we learned another form. Say we have h(t) as a function of hour in terms of temperature. The inverse is now t(h) for temperature in terms of hours. My confusion is, h is the name of the function in h(t) but became the input for t(h) and vice versa for t.
How can h serve both as the name of a function and a numerical variable at the same time?
This might work in physics and engineering, but it's not a very good way to think about it in math.
When you say something like h(t) = t^2 - 1, you're defining a function called h. After you have stated that, h is a mathematical object, just like 1, pi, or the empty set. The function is NOT h(t), even though it is often written that way. The notation h(t) means that h is evaluated with the input t. You can see the difference clearly by looking at the types involved.
h: R -> R (h is a function from real numbers to real numbers)
t: R (t is a real number)
h(t): R (h(t) is a real number)
The name of the parameter is meaningless after the definition. You just refer to the function as h. And in the definition, you could have used any name for the parameter. If you let h(t) = t^2 - 1, it's equivalent to h(x) = x^2 - 1.
There isn't a standard notation for it in mathematics, but in computer science, there is a handy notation for creating functions "literal". What I mean by this is when you define a function using h(t) = t^2 - 1, you really haven't isolated f on the left hand side. You are defining f when it is applied an argument x. But how would you isolate that f on the left hand side of the equation? Sometimes we use notation that looks like this:
f = t -> t^2 - 1
The "t ->" part indicates we are creating a function. This is similar to how we use { ... } to create a set. The "t" on the left hand side gives the name of the argument, which exists within the body of the function. This "t" variable now works very similarly to how the i, j, or k work in summation notation or dx, dy, dz work in an integral. They are dummy variables and you can change them at a whim as long as you change them everywhere inside.
Anyway, that's my little notation rant. I think it's nice and neat.
The f^-1 notation isn't the greatest, but it works very well when you think of functions as a group under composition. We notate function composition as if it were multiplication... so fg = f º g, and (fg)(x) = f(g(x). When we do this, the f^-1 notation makes perfect sense, because f * f^-1 = f / f = 1 (where 1 is the identity function and the identity element of the group).