I quote from my book: "Just after the switch is closed, the inductor acts to oppose a change in the current through it." "Because the current through each inductor is zero before the switch is closed, it will also be zero just afterward. Thus, immediately after the switch is closed, the inductors act as broken wires, as indicated in Fig....." What does that supposed to mean, "Because the current through each inductor is zero before the switch is closed, it will also be zero just afterward."? I can say contradiction for one. If there is "no" current right afterward, the is no opposing of current. So I am not sure if I am missing something but that sounds like a poor analogy to explain what is going on. If they are said to have no current through them, then you might as well agree that any other point in the circuit is of the same, zero current - "right" after the circuit is closed. So going by that description, I don't understand how you can treat inductors as broken wires at first. So my question is, why can they be considered as broken, considering my book has a terrible explanation? Does it have something to do with the resisting induced emf? Though going by the book, it "has no current through it" so it might as well not be an inductor as an inductor is ONLY an inductor if there is a change in current through it, otherwise it is just a wire! An help is appreciated.