Talk:Implicit function theorem

In view of the importance of this theorem, this article seems quite unadequate... but better than nothing! MFH 05:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's what the "edit this page" link is for ;) Dysprosia 07:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By reversible matrix, we mean invertible, right? Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is an important theorem, and the tiny section on the theorem in the article Implicit function is not very clear. As far as the merge is concerned, I think that there is no useful information on the aforementioned page that needs to be added to this one. TSchellhous 21:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split from Implicit function

This is a major theorem, and deserves its own article. Dfeuer 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Inverse function theorem

What is the relationship between the implicit function theorem and the inverse function theorem? That should probably be mentioned in both articles Dfeuer 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

Does anyone have a (GDFL or public domain) proof available? Dfeuer 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example

In the example of the inverse function theorem, shouldn't the left part of (Df)(a,b) have -1's instead of 1's? Arthena^(talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation

Is the term "relation" and the respecitve link, appropriate in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stdazi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link does not seem right. Arthena^(talk) 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]