Yes I suppose I thought that you might have been a bit grumpy (or at least I would have if I had thought about it) but I was having a 'down' day and you made me laugh (or at least smile), and then you disappeared all of a sudden and left me all by myself. :(
It is alright you have been back now but I did not see you here this time. I read this after you had left again.
Oh well, see you next time I guess.
Were you going to find that error for me? The one where we got different answers. I don't know which of us made the mistake :(
Tetration has already arbitrated - looks like I won. lol
http://web2.0calc.com/questions/2-x-4-1-3-x-2
See you next time Rosala :)
The "cubic" part of the inverse function is defined for y less than 0 not y greater than 3 - see http://web2.0calc.com/questions/math-problem_17#r4
Look at the graph of the original function. It is defined for all x and all y, and has a one-to-one mapping x onto y and a one-to-one mapping y onto x, so the inverse function does also.
.
You have interpreted the inverse function by just interchanging x and y. I've interpreted it as as a mapping back from the original f(x) onto the original x, which means, for me, the "x" in f-1(x) is on the original "y" axis, and f-1(x) is on the original "x" axis.
.
Is this confusing or what?!!!!!
.