MHB Is the Derivative of an Inverse Function Valid? Insights and Links!

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of the proof for the derivative of an inverse function, with participants noting the use of both the chain rule and the definition of the derivative. There is confusion regarding the notation, particularly the roles of x and y in the proof, which may lead to misunderstandings. One participant confirms the proof's validity while addressing the notation issue. Additionally, there is a side conversation about whether to use rational or real numbers in the context of the discussion. Overall, the main focus remains on clarifying the proof and its components.
Petrus
Messages
702
Reaction score
0
Hello MHB,
I am aware of there is two way, u can use chain rule or defination of derivate. I totaly understand the proof with this type Derivative of Inverse Function but is that a valid proof? How ever our teacher did proof this with derivate defination which I don't understand from my textbook. What is your thought? Any good link that explain this proof with derivate defination

I am aware that we use chain rule and I am training for oral exam and I guess I will have to proof this chain rule in this one.

edit: why should $$f'(x) \neq 0$$ should it be $$f'(y) \neq 0$$
Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
re: proof of inverse derivative

Petrus said:
Hello MHB,
I am aware of there is two way, u can use chain rule or defination of derivate. I totaly understand the proof with this type Derivative of Inverse Function but is that a valid proof? How ever our teacher did proof this with derivate defination which I don't understand from my textbook. What is your thought? Any good link that explain this proof with derivate defination

I am aware that we use chain rule and I am training for oral exam and I guess I will have to proof this chain rule in this one.

edit: why should $$f'(x) \neq 0$$ should it be $$f'(y) \neq 0$$
Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

That proof looks valid to me.

Note that there may be some confusion about x and y, since their meanings are swapped around after the first line.
In the first line x is used as the argument of f, but in the second line and thereafter x is used as the argument of $f^{-1}$ instead (where you might expect y to be the argument).
 
Re: proof of inverse derivative

I like Serena said:
That proof looks valid to me.

Note that there may be some confusion about x and y, since their meanings are swapped around after the first line.
In the first line x is used as the argument of f, but in the second line and thereafter x is used as the argument of $f^{-1}$ instead (where you might expect y to be the argument).
Thanks for taking your time I like Serena!:)

PS. Should I be rational or real:p

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$
 
Re: proof of inverse derivative

Petrus said:
Thanks for taking your time I like Serena!:)

PS. Should I be rational or real:p

Regards,
$$|\pi\rangle$$

I think that $$|\pi\rangle$$ is imaginary. (Pizza)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K