Talk:Inverse function theorem

what is the inverse of:y=(x^3+2x)/135

135/(x^3+2x) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.214.133 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this have its notation made consistent with the implicit funtion theorem page

New example, references

I messed up this article more than a year ago because I confused it with something else. Apparently, nobody noticed. In case anyone was misled, I apologize. I realized my error recently and have made tremendous revisions based on two great references. Teply 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Implicit function theorem

How is this related to the implicit function theorem? If that relationship is substantial, I think it should be mentioned on both pages. Dfeuer 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For infinite dimensional Banach spaces, the frechet differential need not be invertible even if it is onto this theorem can still be proved by using quotient spaces.

Merger proposal

In my opinion, the material in inverse functions and differentiation ought to be merged into this article. This article would be far easier to understand if it began with a thorough exposition of the single-variable case, and I don't see any reason for a separate article on the single-variable version of the theorem. Jim (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Teply (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree initially, though I wonder if it wouldn't be more suitable to merge inverse functions and differentiation into the article Inverse function. This is because Inverse function already has more "starter material" and because it focus on explaining the concept. It could for instance be added to the section Inverse function#Inverses and derivatives which is a bit short.

In turn, we should make it more clear in this article that the Inverse function article is the place to go for explanations of the basics. EverGreg (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]