Inverse Functions: Definition of "Inverse" /

Drawing the Inverse from a Graph (page 1 of 7)

Your textbook's coverage of inverse functions probably came in two parts. The first part had lots of curlybraces and lists of points; the second part has lots of " y=" or "f(x)=" functions that you have to find the
inverses for, if possible. The first part will show up in your homework and maybe on a test; the second part
will definitely show up on your test, and you might even use it in later classes.
The inverse of a function has all the same points as the original function, except that the x's and y's have
been reversed. This is what they were trying to explain with their sets of points. For instance, supposing your
function is made up of these points: { (1, 0), (3, 5), (0, 4) } . Then the inverse is given by this set of point:
{ (0, 1), (5, 3), (4, 0) }. (Note that the order of the points doesn't matter; you can rearrange the points so
the x's are "in order", or not. It's your choice.)
Once you've found the inverse of a function, the question then becomes: "Is this inverse also a function?"
Using the set of points from above, the function above graphs like this:

You know that this is a function (and you can check quickly by using the Vertical Line Test): you don't have
two different points that share the same x-value. The inverse graph is the blue dots below:

Since the blue dots (the points of the inverse) don't have any two points sharing an x-value, this inverse is
also a function.

Finding the inverse from a graph

Your textbook probably went on at length about how the inverse is "a reflection in the line y = x". What it was
trying to say was that you could take your function, draw the line y = x (which is the bottom-left to top-right
diagonal), put a two-sided mirror on this line, and you could "see" the inverse reflected in the mirror.
Practically speaking, this "reflection" property can help you draw the inverse:

Draw the points and the reflection line:

Reflect the points across the line:

You can see on this last picture that there is a definite graphical relationship between the points of the
function and the points of the inverse. You can use this relationship if you're given a random graph and are
told to graph the inverse. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved

Suppose you are given this graph:

Note that I have NOT told you what

the function is!

Now draw the reflection line:

(It would be a good idea to use a

ruler for this; you'll want to be neat!).

Now eyeball the graph, and draw the

diagonals from known points on the
graph to their "reflections" on the
other side of the line:

Note that the points actually ON the

line y = x don't move; that is, where
the function crosses the diagonal,
the inverse will cross, too.

Now draw in some plot-points:

...and connect the dots:

Without ever knowing what the function was, you can draw the inverse (the purple line).

Is the Inverse a Function? (page 2 of 7)

Now suppose your function is { (1, 2), (2, 1), (3, 4), (5, 1) }. The inverse of this function is { (2, 1), (1, 2),
(4, 3), (1, 5) }. This inverse has two points, (1, 2) and (1, 5), that share a common x-value but have
different y-values. This means that the inverse is NOT a function.

Graphically, the original function looks like this:

You can find the inverse algebraically, by flipping the

coordinates, or graphically, by drawing the line y = x...

x- and y-

Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved

...and reflecting all the points across it:

Note that it's perfectly okay for the inverse to "overwrite" the original
function's points! The points "(2, 1) and (1, 2)" of the inverse
overwrote the points "(1, 2) and (2, 1)" of the original function,
which is why the graph is "missing" a red dot.

But you can see that the inverse is not a function: there are two
points sharing an x-value.

There is a quick way to tell, before going to the trouble of finding the inverse, whether the inverse will
also be a function. You've seen that you sort of "flip" the original function over the line y = x to get the
inverse.

Using this fact, someone noticed that you can also "flip over" the
Vertical Line Test to get the Horizontal Line Test. As you can see,
you can draw a horizontal line through two of the points in the
original function:

Since the original function had two points that shared the same Y-VALUE, then the inverse of the original
function will not be a function. This means, for instance, that no parabola (quadratic function) will have an
inverse that is also a function.
In general, if the graph does not pass the Horizontal Line Test, then the graphed function's inverse will not
itself be a function; if the list of points contains two or more points having the same y-coordinate, then the
listing of points for the inverse will not be a function. So when you're asked "Will the inverse be a function?",
if you're given a graph, draw a horizontal line; if you're given a list of points, compare the y-coordinates.

Finding the Inverse of a Function (page 3 of 7)

The customary method of finding the inverse is some variant of the method I'm going to use below. Whatever
method you use, make sure you do the exact same steps in the exact same order every time, so you
remember those steps when you get to the test.

Find the inverse of

y = 3x 2.

Here's how the process works:

Here's my original function:

Now I'll try to solve for "x =":

Once I have "x =", I'll switch

the "y =" is the inverse.
Then the inverse is

x and y;

y = (x + 2) / 3

If you need to find the domain and range, look at the original function and its graph. The domain of the
original function is the set of all allowable x-values; in this case, the function was a simple polynomial, so the
domain was "all real numbers". The range of the original function is all the y-values you'll pass on the graph;
in this case, the straight line goes on for ever in either direction, so the range is also "all real numbers". To
find the domain and range of the inverse, just swap the domain and range from the original function.

Find the inverse function of

y = x2 + 1, if it exists.

There will be times when they give you functions that don't have inverses.

From the graph, it's easy to see that this function

can't possibly have an inverse, since it violates
the Horizontal Line Test:

It is usually considered acceptable to draw the above graph, draw a horizontal line across it that crosses the
graph twice, and then say something like "The inverse of this function is not itself a function, because of the
Horizontal Line Test". But some teachers want to see the algebra anyway. Be sure to check with your teacher
and verify what will be an acceptable answer -- and do this before the test! Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All
Rights Reserved

What will this look like when I try to find the inverse algebraically? The Vertical Line Test says that I
can't have two y's that share an x-value. That is, each x has to have a UNIQUE corresponding y
value. But look at what happens when I try to solve for " x =":
My original function:
Solving for "x =":

Well, I solved for "x =", but I didn't get a UNIQUE " x =". Instead, I've shown that any given x-value
will actually correspond to two different y-values, one from the "plus" on the square root and the
other from the "minus".
The inverse is not a function.
Any time you come up with a "" sign, you can be pretty sure that the inverse isn't a function.

Find the inverse function of

y = x2 + 1, x < 0.

The only difference between this function and the

previous one is that the domain has been restricted to
only the negative half of the x-axis. This restriction
makes the graph look like this:

This function will have an inverse that is also a function. Just about any time they give you a problem
where they've taken the trouble to restrict the domain, you should take care with the algebra and
draw a nice picture, because the inverse probably is a function, but it will probably take some extra
effort to show this. In this case, since the domain is x < 0 and the range (from the graph) is 1 < y,
then the inverse will have a domain of 1 < x and a range of y < 0. Here's how the algebra looks:
The original function:

Solve for "x =":

By figuring out the domain and range of the

inverse, I know that I should choose the
negative sign for the square root:
Now I'll switch the
the new "y =" is the inverse:
(The "x

and

y;

> 1" restriction comes from the fact that x is inside a square root.)

So the inverse is

y = sqrt(x 1), x > 1, and this inverse is also a function.

Here's the graph:

Find the inverse of

y = x2 + 1, x > 0, and determine whether the inverse is a function.

You'll notice that the only difference

between this and the previous
example is that the domain has been
restricted to the positive x-axis this
time. Here's the graph:

Since this passes the Horizontal Line Test, I know that its inverse will be a function. And since this
graph is different from that of the previous function, I know that the inverse must be different. Again,
it is very helpful to first find the domains and ranges. The function's domain is
x > 0; the range (from the graph) is y > 1. Then the inverse's domain will be x > 1 and the range will
be y > 0. Here's the algebra: Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
The original function:

I'll solve for "x =":

Since I already figured out the domain and

range, I know that I have to choose the positive
square root:
Now I'll switch the x's
the new "y =" is the inverse:
Here's the graph:

and

y's;

Then the inverse is

y = sqrt(x 1), x > 1, and the inverse is also a function.

If you've studied function notation, you may be starting with " f(x)" instead of "y". In that case, start the
inversion process by renaming f(x) as "y"; find the inverse, and rename the resulting "y" as " f1(x)". It's
usually easier to work with "y". Warning: This notation is misleading; the "minus one" power in the function
notation means "the inverse function", not "the reciprocal of". Don't confuse the two.

Find the inverse of

y = 2 / (x 5), and determine whether the inverse is also a function.

Since the variable is in the denominator, this is a rational function. Here's the algebra:

The original function:

I multiply the denominator up to the lefthand side of the equation:
I take the

y through the parentheses:

I get the x-stuff by itself on one side of

the "equals" sign:
Then I solve for x:
And then switch the x's and y's:

This is just another rational function. The inverse function is

y=

(5x 2)

/x

Find the inverse of f(x) = sqrt(x 2), x > 2. Determine whether the inverse is also a
function, and find the domain and range of the inverse.

The domain restriction comes from the fact that x is

inside a square root. Usually I wouldn't bother writing
down "x > 2", because I know that x-values less than
2 would give me negatives inside the square root. But
the restriction is useful in this case because, together
with the graph, it will help me determine the domain
and range on the inverse:

The domain is x > 2; the range (from the graph) is

x < 0; the range will be y > 2. Here's the algebra:

y < 0. Then the domain of the inverse will be

The original function:

Rename "f(x)" as "y":
Solve for "x =":
Switch

x and y:

Rename "y" as "f-inverse".

Since I already figured out the
domain and range, I know
which half of the quadratic I
have to choose:
Then the inverse

y = x2 + 2 is a function, with domain x < 0 and range y > 2.

Here's the graph:

Find the inverse

f(x) =

(x 2)

, where x does not equal 2. Is the inverse a function?

(x + 2)

First, I recognize that f(x) is a rational

function. Here's its graph:

The restriction on the domain comes from the fact that I can't divide by zero, so x can't be equal to
2. I usually wouldn't bother writing down the restriction, but it's helpful here because I need to know
the domain and range of the inverse. Note from the picture (and recalling the concept of horizontal
asymptotes) that y will never equal 1. Then the domain is "x is not equal to 2" and the range is " y
is not equal to 1". For the inverse, they'll be swapped: the domain will be "x is not equal to 1" and
the range will be "y is not equal to 2". Here's the algebra:

The original function:

I rename "f(x)" as "y":
Then I solve for "x =":

I get the x-stuff on one side:

Here's the trick: I factor out the x!

Then I switch

x and y:

And rename "y" as "f-inverse"; the

domain restriction comes from the fact
that this is a rational function.

Since the inverse is just a rational function,

then the inverse is indeed a function.

Here's the graph:

inverse is y = (2x 2) / (x 1), and the inverse is also a function,

with domain of all x not equal to 1 and range of all y not equal to 2.
Then the

Find the inverse of f(x) = x2 3x + 2, x < 1.5

With the domain restriction, the

graph looks like this:
From what I know about
graphing quadratics, the vertex
is at (x, y) = (1.5, 0.25), so
this graph is the left-hand
"half" of the parabola.

This half of the parabola passes the Horizontal Line Test, so the (restricted) function is invertible. But
how to solve for the inverse? Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved
The original function:

f(x) = x2 3x + 2

I rename "f(x)" as "y":

y = x2 3x + 2

Now I solve for "x =" by using the

Quadratic Formula:

0 = x2 3x +
0 = x2 3x + (2 y)

Since x < 1.5, then I want the

negative square root:
Now I switch

x and y:

And rename "y" as "f-inverse";

the domain restriction comes
from the fact that this is a
rational function.
Then the inverse is given by:

Find the inverse of f(x) = sqrt[ 4 x2 ], 2 < x < 0

Without the domain restriction, the graph looks like this:

This clearly fails the Horizontal Line Test, so the inverse,

without the domain restriction, would not be a function.

Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All Rights Reserved

However, with the domain restriction, I get this:

The restricted function passes the Horizontal Line Test, so the inverse will now be a function. Since
the domain of the original function is 2 < x < 0 and the range is 2 < y < 0, then the domain of the
inverse will be 2 < x < 0 and the range will be 2 < y < 0. Yes, the domains and the ranges are
identical. Here's the algebra:
The original function:
I rename "f(x)" as "y":

Then I solve for "x =":

Since I already figured out the

domain and range, I know that I
have to pick the NEGATIVE
square root here:
Now I switch

x and y:

And rename "y" as "f-inverse".

So the inverse is the exact same function I started with!

If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. The

original function was one quarter of the circle
centered at the origin and having radius r = 2.
Considering where the reflecting line y = x goes,
and the fact that the points on either side of the
reflecting line are neatly symmetric, then the inverse
couldn't be anything other than what we got.

If you use the upper-right quarter of the circle you'll get the same result; the inverse will be identical to the
function. However, if you take either of the other two quarters, you'll get the remaining quarter as the inverse:

...and:

Proving that Two Functions are Inverses of Each Other

I have shown how to draw an inverse if you're given the graph, and how to find an inverse if you're given the
formula. But suppose you are given two functions and told to verify (to check) that they are inverses of each
other. How would you do that? First, you would need to note that drawing the graphs is not a "proof". To
emphasize that a picture isn't proof, the instructions will often tell you to "verify algebraically" that the
functions are inverses. How do you do that?
If you think back to the definition of an inverse, the point of the inverse is that it's backwards from what you
started with; it takes you back to where you started from. For instance, if the point (1, 3) is on the graph of
the function, then the point (3, 1) is on the graph of the inverse. That is, if you start with x = 1, you will go to
y = 3; then you plug this into the inverse, and you'll go right back to x = 1, where you started from.
It is this property that you use to prove (or disprove)
that functions are inverses of each other. You will
compose the functions (that is, plug x into one
function, plug that function into the inverse function,
and then simplify) and verify that you end up with just
"x". Here's what it looks like:

Determine algebraically whether f (x) =

3x 2 and g(x) = (x + 2)/3 are inverses of
each other. Copyright Elizabeth Stapel 2000-2011 All
Rights Reserved

I will plug the formula for g(x) into every

instance of "x" in the formula for f (x):

Now I will plug the formula for

f (x) into every instance of "x" in the formula for g(x) :

Both ways, I ended up with just "x", so

Determine algebraically whether

other.

f (x) and g(x) are inverses of each other.

f (x) = 3x 2 and g(x) = (1/3)x + 2 are inverses of each

I'll plug the formula for g(x) into every instance of "x" in the formula for f (x):

I didn't end up with just "x", so

f (x) and g(x) are not inverses of each other.

Once you've found one composition that doesn't work, you're done. You don't have to show that the
composition doesn't work the other way, either.
A close examination of this last example above points out something that can cause problems for some
students. Since the inverse "undoes" whatever the original function did to x, the instinct is to create an
"inverse" by applying reverse operations. In this case, since f (x) multiplied x by 3 and then subtracted 2
from the result, the instinct is to think that the inverse would be to divide x by 3 and then to add 2 to the
result. But as you saw above, this is not correct. Comparing this example with the previous example, you can
see that the reversed operations were correct, but that they also need to be applied in reverse order. That is,
since f (x) first multiplied x by 3 and then subtracted off 2, the inverse first adds the 2 back on, and then
divides the 3 back off.
Also, in the second example, as soon as I did not end up with " x", I knew the functions were not inverses. I
had done the composition ( f o g)(x) and had come up with something other than " x", so I didn't bother
checking (g o f )(x). In the first example, however, I checked ( f o g)(x) and came up with "x", and then I
also checked (g o f )(x), too. Why? Here's an example of why:

Determine algebraically whether

other.
First, I'll plug g(x) into

f (x):

f (x) = x2, and

are inverses of each

Since I started by plugging x into g(x), then I started with non-negative x-values. Since the absolute
value of zero is zero and the absolute value of a positive number is just itself, then, in this case, I can
simplify | x | as just "x". Then I have ( f o g)(x) = x.
Where did the absolute-value bars come from? The square root of something squared is the technical
definition of the absolute value: the square of the value will always be positive, as will the square root, so
taking the square root of something squared always returns the positive of the original number. In this case,
the domain of g(x) was defined as non-negative, so the absolute-value bars could be dropped above. But
this isn't always the case:
Looking good so far. Now I'll plug

f (x) into g(x):

Hmm... Since I started by plugging x into f (x), then I was starting with any value of x. In particular,
the value of x might have been negative. Since I don't know if x is negative or positive, then I can't
remove the absolute-value bars on the final answer, and I'm stuck with an answer of " (g o f )(x) = |
x |". So (g o f )(x) does not simplify to x.
The answer is:

g(x) and f (x) are not inverses of each other.

This is why you need to check both ways: sometimes there are fussy technical considerations, usually
involving square roots, that force the composition not to work, because the domains and ranges of the two
functions aren't compatible. In this case, if f (x) had been restricted to non-negative x, then the functions
would have been inverses. In general, though, if one composition gives you just " x", then the other one will,
too, especially if you're not dealing with restricted domains. But you should remember to do both
compositions on tests and such, in order to get full credit.