I did this:

-but, is there a more 'technical' way of computing this rather than using the definition of both absolute value and inverses such as in the following.

Thank you.

Printable View

- Aug 23rd 2010, 04:21 PMintegralAbsolute value inverse.

I did this:

-but, is there a more 'technical' way of computing this rather than using the definition of both absolute value and inverses such as in the following.

Thank you.

- Aug 23rd 2010, 06:50 PMAckbeet
The absolute value function fails to be one-to-one on the real line (it fails the horizontal line test). Therefore, it has no inverse. Are there any artificial domain restrictions we should know about here?

- Aug 23rd 2010, 10:35 PMintegral
I would assume it would be the same as which is also non-injective.

The answer comes to be which is not a function, yet is graphed using only the real part. - Aug 24th 2010, 03:19 AMAckbeet
If you're only interested in an inverse

*relation*, not a*function*, then I would agree that the situations are analogous. Incidentally, you should write the inverse as the following:

The graph of the inverse relation is merely the original graph flipped about the line , as indeed, all inverse relations in 2 dimensions are produced in the same way.