On Friday, April 9, 2004, at 12:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, since the squaring the square root of a
number yields the original number, on what grounds would one assert that taking
the square root is *not* the inverse of squaring?
Therefore, this would appear to be a case where f(x) is the inverse of g(x), but
g(x) is *not* the inverse of f(x) !
You are correct in all. However, some folks define inverse to be symmetric, so we should watch for that usage. By symmetric, I mean that your last statement cannot be true. In that usage.
Dar Scott
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
