Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Derivative of inverse function

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    1

    Derivative of inverse function

    I'm reading the proof for the following theorem.

    If f is a one-to-one differentiable function with inverse function g=f^{-1} and f'(g(a)) \neq 0, then the inverse function is differentiable at a and
    g'(a)=\frac{1}{f'(g(a))}

    The Calculus textbook that I'm reading gives two proofs, the first one uses Newton's difference quotient, which I can understand.

    The 2nd goes like this:

    Replacing a by the general number x in the theorem, we get

    g'(x)=\frac{1}{f'(g(x))}

    If we write y=g(x), then f(y)=x, so the equation can be expressed in Leibniz notation.

    \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{1}{\frac{dx}{dy}}

    IF IT IS KNOWN IN ADVANCE THAT f^{-1} IS DIFFERENTIABLE, then its derivative can be computed more easily by using implicit differentiation.

    f(y)=x
    f'(y)\frac{dy}{dx}=1
    \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{1}{f'(y)}=\frac{1}{\frac{dx}{d  y}}

    My question is this, I don't understand which step of the proof requires the fact that f^{-1} is differentiable

    Thanks a lot if you can help
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by acc100jt View Post
    I'm reading the proof for the following theorem.

    If f is a one-to-one differentiable function with inverse function g=f^{-1} and f'(g(a)) \neq 0, then the inverse function is differentiable at a and
    g'(a)=\frac{1}{f'(g(a))}

    The Calculus textbook that I'm reading gives two proofs, the first one uses Newton's difference quotient, which I can understand.

    The 2nd goes like this:

    Replacing a by the general number x in the theorem, we get

    g'(x)=\frac{1}{f'(g(x))}

    If we write y=g(x), then f(y)=x, so the equation can be expressed in Leibniz notation.

    \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{1}{\frac{dx}{dy}}

    IF IT IS KNOWN IN ADVANCE THAT f^{-1} IS DIFFERENTIABLE, then its derivative can be computed more easily by using implicit differentiation.

    f(y)=x
    f'(y)\frac{dy}{dx}=1
    \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{1}{f'(y)}=\frac{1}{\frac{dx}{d  y}}

    My question is this, I don't understand which step of the proof requires the fact that f^{-1} is differentiable

    Thanks a lot if you can help
    It wouldn't make any sense if f^{-1} weren't differentiable, because then g(x) would not be differentiable, and the entire discussion would be irrelevant. Do you see what I mean?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    1
    not quite .

    Referring to the theorem, the RESULT tells us that f^{-1} is differentiable, whereas the second proof (the one in Leibniz notation) requires f^{-1} to be differentiable, right?

    Since y=f^{-1}(x), so do you mean that when we are writing \frac{dy}{dx}, we are assuming that y=f^{-1}(x) is differentiable?

    Thanks
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    1
    the first proof in the textbook uses Newton's difference quotient to prove, but the condition that f^{-1} is differentiable is not required, but the discussion is still relevant, why? i'm getting confused haha
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    No one in Particular VonNemo19's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by acc100jt View Post
    not quite .

    Referring to the theorem, the RESULT tells us that f^{-1} is differentiable, whereas the second proof (the one in Leibniz notation) requires f^{-1} to be differentiable, right?
    The "result" shows the relationship of the inverse functions as they relate in "calculus". If f is one to one and differentiable (smooth), it necessarily follows that its inverse is differentiable and smooth. It is a statement meant to be taken at face value. Note that this, however, is not what the proof is trying to show. The proof is trying to show that g'(a)=\frac{1}{f'[g(a)]}

    Quote Originally Posted by acc100jt View Post
    Since y=f^{-1}(x), so do you mean that when we are writing \frac{dy}{dx}, we are assuming that y=f^{-1}(x) is differentiable?

    Thanks
    Yes, but it's not so much an assumption as a necessary condition...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    1
    GREAT!!! all doubts cleared. Thanks a lot!!! VonNemo19
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Derivative of an Inverse function
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 28th 2010, 07:41 PM
  2. Derivative of inverse function
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 25th 2008, 11:32 AM
  3. inverse function derivative
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 3rd 2007, 06:32 PM
  4. inverse function derivative
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 5th 2007, 01:16 AM
  5. inverse function derivative
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 4th 2007, 09:21 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum