The inverse of a set of points?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of finding the inverse of a set of points, specifically the set p={1,2}. Participants clarify that the term "inverse" is often misapplied to sets, as it typically pertains to operations or functions rather than mere collections of points. The notion of inverse is more relevant in the context of binary operations or functions, where specific mathematical rules apply, such as multiplicative or additive inverses. Some suggest that the notation P^-1 could refer to the complement of the set rather than a true inverse. Ultimately, without additional context, the idea of an inverse for a set of points lacks a meaningful interpretation.
thinice
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble with this I'm sure it's a stupid terminology thing but for my personal retention, for example:
p={1,2}

what is the inverse of P (or mathematically put: p^-1)

-thanks :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd guess it's a set without the points, or p={1/1, 1/2} i.e. p={1^-1, 2^-1}.
It's more probable that's it's my second answer cos a set without 1 and 2 in its elements should be defined using the set-operation terms e.g. intersect, union (I forgot the one that means "without the elements")

I MIGHT BE COMPLETELY WRONG! SO WAIT TILL SUM1 WHO KNOWS ANSWER FOR SURE COMES ALONG.

ok?
 
I think it depends...

A set of points (x,y) describes a position, and the inverse of a position does not have much meaning.

The same set of points could, however, describe a displacement vector if the origin is assumed to be the initial location and (x,y) is the final location. The resultant displacement would have a magnitude of SQRT (x^2 + y^2) (that's pythagorean theorem), and this quantity could be inversed.

There's probably other interpretations
 
Without any extra context, the inverse of a set is not a meaningful concept.

Chi Meson said:
A set of points (x,y) describes a position, and the inverse of a position does not have much meaning.

Meson - you're confusing sets with ordered pairs. Even so, ordered pairs are generally not considered to have inverses.

Typically, inverses make sens used when you have:

Binary operations and an identity e.g.:
The multiplicative inverse of 2 is \frac{1}{2}. So 2 \times \frac{1}{2} = 1
or
The additive inverse of 2 is -2. So 2 + (-2) = 0

Some type of relation:
The inverse of f(x)=2x is f^{-1}(x)=\frac{x}{2}. For bijections this is also an inverse in the sense above. I.e. for f a bijection, f(f^{-1}(x))=x is the identity function, but can readily be generalized to relations, or so that the inverse of f:X \rightarrow Y, is f:Y \rightarrow P(X) where P(X) is the power set of X.

There are probably other notions of inverse that I'm not thinking of. Regarding the notation P^{-1} - I supose it might be used to describe the complement of P but, if this is for a math course or text, look for the first instance of it in the text.
 
ordered pairs do have inverses. The inverse of (1,3) is (3,1). Its just like with a function, to determine the inverse function you have to switch the x and y values.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .

Similar threads

Back
Top