use-revolution Digest, Vol 7, Issue 55

[Dar Scott]

On Friday, April 9, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Cubist at aol.com 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