1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Invertible function

  1. Mar 18, 2016 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    prove, using the definition, that the mapping
    ## \mathbf{u}=\mathbf{u}(u_1(x_1,x_2),u_2(x_1,x_2))## where
    ##u_1=\tan(x_1)+x_2 ##
    ##u_2=x_2^3##

    is a bijection from the strip ##-\frac{pi}{2}<x_1<\frac{pi}{2}## in the ## x_1x_2##-plane onto the entire ##u_1u_2##-plane, and find the inverse.

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution
    Finding the inverse is not the problem. My problem is that when I am trying to apply the inverse function theorem, I get that at ##x_2=0## the Jacobian is 0. The Jacobian that I have found is:
    [itex]\frac{\partial (u_1,u_2)}{\partial (x_1,x_2)}=
    \begin{vmatrix}
    \frac{1}{cos^2(x_1)} & 1\\
    0& 3x_2^2\\
    \end{vmatrix}
    [/itex]

    What am I missing here?

    Thank you.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2016 #2

    Samy_A

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hint:
    Let ##f: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R \ :\ x \mapsto x³##.
    Is ##f## a bijection?
    Is the derivative of ##f## different from 0 in every point?

    What does this tell us about the inverse function theorem?
     
  4. Mar 20, 2016 #3
    Sorry for the late reply.
    the answers are "yes"(but the derivative of f is 0 at 0).
    Does this tell us that the inverse function theorem doesn't apply to that point(0 in your example)? Does it mean that we need to prove for that point without using the inverse function theorem?

    Thank you.
     
  5. Mar 21, 2016 #4

    Samy_A

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Yes.

    Let's look at the precise statement of the inverse function theorem:

    Let f : ℝn → ℝn be continuously differentiable on some open set containing a, and suppose that Df(a) is not singular. Then there is some open set V containing a and an open W containing f(a) such that f : V → W has a continuous inverse f−1 : W → V which is differentiable for all y ∈ W.

    The Jacobian not being singular is a sufficient condition for a function to have an inverse (locally), not a necessary one.
     
  6. Mar 22, 2016 #5
    OK, great. I think I have got it.
    By the way, do you know a good book for self learning multivariable analysis?(standard course for mathematicians)

    Thank you again!
     
  7. Mar 22, 2016 #6

    Samy_A

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This insight from @micromass may help.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Invertible function
  1. Invertible matrices (Replies: 3)

  2. Is it Invertible? (Replies: 8)

Loading...