|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Overly complicated reductions?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg77626] Re: Overly complicated reductions?
- From: Jean-Marc Gulliet <jeanmarc.gulliet at gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:20:13 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
- References: <f4om08$7bj$1@smc.vnet.net>
David Rees wrote:
> Consider f(x)=e^(-2x)
>
> I wanted to retreive the inverse function f^-1(x), Mathematica to the
> rescue:
> \!\(Reduce[y == E\^\(\(-2\) x\), x]\)
>
> \!\(C[1] \[Element] Integers && y != 0 &&
> x == 1\/2\ \((2\ \[ImaginaryI]\ \[Pi]\ C[1] + Log[1\/y])\)\)
>
> This can't be right, I can rearrange it to just Ln(x)/-2 on paper. What did
> I do wrong?
>
> Thanks
You could specify a domain to get something closer to what you are
looking for. For instance,
In[1]:= Reduce[y == E^(-2*x), x, Reals]
Out[1]= y > 0 && x == (1/2)*Log[1/y]
Regards,
Jean-Marc
Prev by Date:
Background Option in LocatorPane
Next by Date:
Re: Axis missing from simple ListPlot
Previous by thread:
Re: Overly complicated reductions?
Next by thread:
Re: Overly complicated reductions?
|