Solving a Sigmoid Function - Wolfram Alpha

  • Thread starter Thread starter inc7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on rewriting the sigmoid function, expressed as 1/(1 + e^-t), into an alternate form of 1 - 1/(1 + e^t). Participants suggest multiplying the numerator and denominator by e^t to facilitate the transformation. The rewritten form highlights the function's symmetry, demonstrating that f(t) + f(-t) = 1, which is not immediately apparent from the original expression. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical reasoning behind this alternate representation and its implications. Understanding this symmetry is crucial for deeper insights into the sigmoid function's properties.
inc7
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'm working with the sigmoid function which is written

1/(1 + e^-t)

While plugging this into wolfram alpha, I noticed an alternate way to write it is

1 - 1/(1 + e^t)

I can't for the life of me figure out how to go about rewriting it in the alternate form. Would anyone be able to give me a hint on how to go about rewriting it this way? Or even better point me at some material that will help me figure it out? Thanks

Here is the link to wolfram alpha

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/(1+++exp(-t))
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Start by multipling the top and bottom of 1/(1 + e^-t) by e^t.
 
inc7 said:
Hi,
I'm working with the sigmoid function which is written

1/(1 + e^-t)

While plugging this into wolfram alpha, I noticed an alternate way to write it is

1 - 1/(1 + e^t)

I can't for the life of me figure out how to go about rewriting it in the alternate form. Would anyone be able to give me a hint on how to go about rewriting it this way? Or even better point me at some material that will help me figure it out? Thanks

Here is the link to wolfram alpha

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/(1+++exp(-t))

1/(1 + e-t) = 1/(1 + 1/et) = et/(1 + et) = (1 + et -1)/(1 + et) =

you can complete.

Nothing difficult, only thing difficult to understand maybe is why they want it in that form.
 
epenguin said:
1/(1 + e-t) = 1/(1 + 1/et) = et/(1 + et) = (1 + et -1)/(1 + et) =

you can complete.

Nothing difficult, only thing difficult to understand maybe is why they want it in that form.

Thanks guys. That helped. So to complete would you end up with

1/(1 + et) + 1et/(1 + et) - 1/(1 + et) = 1 - 1/(1 + et)
 
Last edited:
epenguin said:
Nothing difficult, only thing difficult to understand maybe is why they want it in that form.

It shows the function is "symmetrical" in the sense that f(t) + f(-t) = 1, which isn't obvious from either expression on its own.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top