Inverse Function: Solve (-2x^5) + 1/3

AI Thread Summary
To find the inverse of the function f(x) = -2x^5 + 1/3, the process involves switching x and y and solving for y. The correct manipulation leads to the inverse function f^-1(x) = [(1/6) - (x/2)]^(1/5). There is confusion among participants regarding the steps to derive the inverse, with some mistakenly suggesting that simply switching variables suffices. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly solving for y after the switch, rather than just interchanging x and y. Ultimately, the correct inverse function is confirmed, clarifying the algebraic steps needed.
SETHOSCOTT
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find the inverse function.
[Find (f^-1)(x)]
f(x) = (-2x^5) + 1/3

Homework Equations



Find the inverse function.
[Find (f^-1)(x)]
f(x)=2-2x^2

The Attempt at a Solution



(-2x^5) + 1/3
(-1/2x^1/5) + 3
Answer is different, how would I get to (-1/2x + 1/6)^1/5?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
uhh? :confused: if x → y is a function, then the inverse is y → x.

so if y = -2x5 + 1/3, what is x ?
 
Yea, not for this, just find functions.
 
Is the answer of the referred problem even correct?
 
If you have y = f(x) = -2x5 + 1/3, then the inverse is x = f-1(y).
From your equation y = -2x5 + 1/3, solve for x in terms of y. That will be your inverse, as a function of y. To write the inverse as a function of x, just switch the variables (i.e., change y to x).
 
SETHOSCOTT said:
Is the answer of the referred problem even correct?

Not even close. What you did is not how you find the inverse function. See tiny-tim's and my posts.
 
Inverse of x=y does not = y=x.
-y=-x is the inverse as it is perpendicular.
Go graph it.
 
It's the answer in the book, the reference has less than a 1/1,000 chance of being wrong.
 
SETHOSCOTT said:
how would I get to (-1/2x + 1/6)^1/5?
SETHOSCOTT said:
It's the answer in the book, the reference has less than a 1/1,000 chance of being wrong.

Like this :rolleyes:
tiny-tim said:
if y = -2x5 + 1/3, what is x ?
 
  • #10
I still want to know how, though.
 
  • #11
There is no reference to what x is.
 
  • #12
I am confused with all the confusion here.


@SETHOSCOTT
tiny-tim and Mark44 have given the perfect cues to the answer.

It's a simple algebraic manipulation of the equation. Interchange x and y and make y the subject of the equation to get the inverse function.

What's left to clear up?
 
  • #13
SETHOSCOTT said:
Inverse of x=y does not = y=x.
-y=-x is the inverse as it is perpendicular.
Go graph it.
The function y = x is its own inverse. Perpendicularity has nothing to do with inverses.

-y = -x is in fact equivalent to y = x. The graphs of these two equations are identical.
 
  • #14
I'm not going to even say anything... nevermind...
 
  • #15
PWND
y=-2x5 + (1/3)
- (1/3) - (1/3)
y - (1/3) = -2x5
* -.5 * -.5
(1/6) - (y/2)= x5
[(1/6) - (y/2)]1/5 = (x5)1/5
[(1/6) - (y/2)]1/5 = x
 
  • #16
Don't kid yourself... har-har.
 
  • #17
SETHOSCOTT said:
PWND
y=-2x5 + (1/3)
- (1/3) - (1/3)
y - (1/3) = -2x5
* -.5 * -.5
(1/6) - (y/2)= x5
[(1/6) - (y/2)]1/5 = (x5)1/5
[(1/6) - (y/2)]1/5 = x

That's better! :smile:

But you don't need all those intermediate steps (some of which I don't really understand) …

it's ok if you just say

y = -2x5 + (1/3),

so 2x5 = (1/3) - y

so x = (1/6 - y/2)1/5 :wink:

(and so the inverse is f-1(x) = … ? :smile:)
 
  • #18
Wait so you KNEW this?
 
  • #19
Well, duh, switch, ummm... x and y, but, yea.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
"Epiphany"

SETHOSCOTT said:
Well, duh, switch, ummm... x and y, but, yea.

"duh" is irrelevant …

if you want full marks in the exam,

you do actually need to finish the question! :wink:
 
  • #21
I did, I put, "f-1(x)= [(1/6) - (x/2)]1/5," for my answer. TY, anyways. Off to chemistry, for metallurgy.
 
  • #22
Wait, you guys said all I needed to do was switch the variables, which is false.
 
  • #23
SETHOSCOTT said:
I did, I put, "f-1(x)= [(1/6) - (x/2)]1/5," for my answer.

:confused: where?
SETHOSCOTT said:
Wait, you guys said all I needed to do was switch the variables, which is false.

No, it's true … switch x and y (or x and f(x)) in the original equation, and then solve for x :smile:
 
  • #24
R1. On my assignment. I put it on my assignment.

R2. Yea, see, you didn't say anything about solving, it worked either way.
 
  • #25
SETHOSCOTT said:
R1. On my assignment. I put it on my assignment.

ah, you mean …
SETHOSCOTT said:

The Attempt at a Solution



(-2x^5) + 1/3
(-1/2x^1/5) + 3
Answer is different, how would I get to (-1/2x + 1/6)^1/5?
… we thought that was the answer in the book. :wink:
 
  • #26
I guess. I think... yea, that way. a few exceptions, like utilizing the rooting overhang, instead of the powering to the 1/5, but it is equal to the answer, exactly equal.
 
Back
Top