hangover
- 13
- 0
If a function is bijective, then its inverse exists. Is there any example that inverse of a function exists but the original function is not bijective?
The discussion revolves around the properties of the function \( f(x) = x^2 \) and its bijectiveness when defined over a domain that includes zero. Participants explore the conditions under which a function can have an inverse and whether \( x^2 \) can be considered bijective in certain intervals.
Participants generally disagree on the bijectiveness of \( x^2 \) when defined over domains that include zero. While some argue it is not bijective due to the presence of zero, others contend that it can be bijective under certain restrictions.
There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of continuity and strict monotonicity on the bijectiveness of functions, particularly in relation to boundary points like zero.
elibj123 said:A function can be locally bijective, so it's inverse exists only in some finite interval.
For example [tex]x^{2}[/tex] is not a bijective in any interval containing x=0 (since f'(0)=0) but if you restrict yourself to x>0, then you off course have the inverse
[tex]f(x)=\sqrt{x}[/tex] or in x<0 the inverse is [tex]f(x)=-\sqrt{-x}[/tex].
I had a little confusion in defining the inverse sorry.hangover said:Thanks a lot! It may be a typo in my textbook.
However, why is x^2 not bijective if we define the domain containing zero(like x=>0)? It is a continuous function so isn't it bijective at this interval though being not strictly increasing? Thanks