MHB Why Extraneous Solutions Occur w/ Equations & Injective Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter SweatingBear
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Applying functions to both sides of an equation can lead to extraneous solutions, particularly when the function is not injective, as demonstrated with the squaring function. For instance, using the exponential function on a logarithmic equation does not yield valid solutions if the arguments are not defined. Even injective functions require careful consideration of the domain to avoid extraneous results. Extending to complex numbers may provide additional insights, but it complicates the inversion process. Ultimately, checking final solutions against the original equation is essential to ensure validity.
SweatingBear
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have two expressions, $$e_1$$ and $$e_2$$, and apply a function $$f$$ to both expressions (or both sides of the equation). First

$$e_1 = e_2 \, ,$$

and then

$$f(e_1) = f(e_2) \, ,$$

The way I have understood this concept is that if you have two expressions and apply a function, you can always reverse the step as long as the function is injective (or one-to-one). This is why squaring can yield extraneous solutions because $$f(x) := x^2$$ is not injective.

For example if we have

$$\ln (x - 4) = \ln (2x - 6) \, .$$

Let us apply $$f(x) := e^x$$ (the function is injective!) and thus have

$$x - 4 = 2x - 6 \, .$$

But the equation we have arrived does not provide a solution to the original equation, in spite of the fact that we applied a one-to-one function.

I already understand that it can be comprehended if one thinks in terms of functions and their domains, but I am strictly speaking interested in thinking in terms of applying functions to both sides of an equation.

Why did it not work to apply the exponential function despite the function being injective?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$e^x$ is not defined if $x$ is not defined.
You can apply 1-1 (bijective) functions all you like, but you still have to check if the argument was defined in the first place.

Now if we extend the domains and ranges to the complex numbers, we can get some more results. Although we will still not have neat 1-1 inversions.
 
Ok but if we for example have

$$x = \sinh (\theta) \, ,$$

and then apply $$f(z) := z^2$$, it would yield

$$x^2 = \sinh^2 (\theta) \, .$$

Now I am worried whether $$x^2 = \sinh^2 (\theta) \, .$$ contains some extraneous solutions or something else hidden that I should heed...

Sidenote: I am working on the indefinite integral of $$\sqrt{1+x^2}$$.
 
Yes, you are introducing extraneous solutions, since a square introduces indeed an extra solution.
At least you don't lose solutions, so when you check your final solutions against your original equation, you're good to go.
 
I like Serena said:
Yes, you are introducing extraneous solutions, since a square introduces indeed an extra solution.
At least you don't lose solutions, so when you check your final solutions against your original equation, you're good to go.

Alright thanks
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K