Proof by Notation (yes, it's actually true)pic.twitter.com/gTFvdfTzIw
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The proper generalization of the Inverse Function Theorem to higher dimensions applies to the 𝐽𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 (defined below)
[ ]⁻¹ denotes the 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 inversepic.twitter.com/wyvtEcYOfQ
I think that physicists should always use scare-quotes when they talk about "proving" stuff :p. The proof assumes that the inverse of a differentiable function is differentiable which is part of what you are trying to prove!
the statement i'm making is when the derivative of the inverse of f and f exist when you get dy/dx dx/dy = 1
wait, this is very much not called that: the Inverse Function Theorem says that if the derivative is nonzero at a point, then the function is invertible on some neighborhood around that point!
As a physics major, this makes sense, but I've been told that treating differentials like standard algabraic variables will give mathematicians conniptions.
There are so many things wrong with this proof: You can’t assume an inverse function exists without first assuming bijectivity or demonstrating it d/dx is a linear operator so your algebra is invalid
You should do one on fubinis theorem for us physicists.
You first need to prove that, assuming f is differentiable at c∈R, then f^-1 is differentiable at d=f(c). This proof just assumes it.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.