3

Writing out the list of common mathematical transformations, there's an apparent symmetry of pairs:

  • addition and subtraction
  • multiplication and division
  • powers and roots
  • trigfunctions and arctrigfunctions
  • matrix multiplication and inversion
  • exponents and logs
  • integration and differentiation

Is there a reason for this?

While I understand that a transformation can be reversed, it's not clear to me why the "undoing" of an operation doesn't take 3 (or more) steps.

I can think of operations that a self-reversing, for example "substitute X for Y in an expression" can be undone by applying the same rule. So not every operation is paired with another.

Ben
  • 153
  • This question was previously posted to https://mathoverflow.net/q/370195/20837 but closed as off topic. – Ben Aug 26 '20 at 22:44
  • The "undoing" of an operation may take one, two, three or ninety-seven steps, but more commonly it is essentially impossible in terms of the general ideas surrounding the original operation. Hence the need to give a second definition for such a thing. –  Aug 26 '20 at 22:53
  • Because you need to define the inverse of an element and the identity element in a group. – Robin Nicole Aug 26 '20 at 23:11
  • 2
    Your question is too vague to answer. That isn't the list of mathematical operations it's just a list. Many mathematical operations have inverses and often those inverses are unique. That isn't a universal truth and as some of your examples show, the sense in which the inverses exist is nuanced (multiplication by a matrix of determinant 0 has no inverse, $\arcsin$ is only an inverse to $\sin$ in a partial sense. – Rob Arthan Aug 26 '20 at 23:31
  • 1
    The reason is more about semantics than about mathematics. The symmetry comes from the definitions, you can read $a+b=c$ both as $c$ is the sum of $a$ and $b$ and as $b$ is the difference of $c$ and $a$. – Randy Marsh Aug 26 '20 at 23:41
  • "'substitute X for Y in an expression' can be undone by applying the same rule" is untrue: $X+Z\mapsto Y+Z \mapsto Y+Z \mapsto \dots$" and any repeated application does not undo the operation. There are self-inverting operators and maps, but your example is not one of them. And as for why self-inverting operators and maps do not appear to have a 'pair'; they do. It just happens that the inverse is indistinguishable from the original so when we consider the unique operations associated with our chosen 'theme' there is indeed only one. – JPI Aug 27 '20 at 00:42
  • @JPI - would my intent have been clearer if I had said "substitute a variable for another variables in an expression"? I did not mean to imply "substitute the variable X for the variable Y in an expression." – Ben Aug 27 '20 at 00:47
  • @Ben If you really want an example of an operation which is self-inverting, negation will do. $x \mapsto -x \mapsto x \mapsto \dots$. If you want to keep on your line of thinking, something like "in an expression, substitute X with Y and substitute Y with X" works. – JPI Aug 27 '20 at 00:51

1 Answers1

8

Pragmatically

The short answer is that, almost without exception, in a pragmatic sense, we often need inverse operations. Consider, for example, something you would solve in your introduction to algebra.

$$2x = 6$$

This question is entirely about inversion. In words it asks: "Knowing that something when multiplied by two is equal to six, determine the original value."

Answering this question requires that we talk about inverse operations, how can we define something that undoes multiplication and what are its properties?

Maps and Multiplication

But there is a deeper reason that operations occur in pairs (small caveat, we will come back to this). An operator can be thought of as a mapping from one set of numbers, or a set of tuples of numbers, to another set. For example, on the set of inputs $\{1, 2, 3\}$ we can exhaustively define the map produced by multiplication. Let $m(x_1,x_2)$ be a map from $\{1,2,3\}^2\to\mathbb{N}$ defined as normal multiplication $x_1x_2$.

\begin{align} m(1,1) \mapsto 1 & \quad m(1,2) \mapsto 2 & m(1,3) \mapsto 3 \\ m(2,1) \mapsto 2 & \quad m(2,2) \mapsto 4 & m(2,3) \mapsto 6 \\ m(3,1) \mapsto 3 & \quad m(3,2) \mapsto 6 & m(3,3) \mapsto 9 \end{align}

Can we define a mapping that inverses this operation? Of course! Just point the arrows the other way.

\begin{align} 1 \mapsto m(1,1) & \quad 2 \mapsto m(1,2) & 3 \mapsto m(1,3) \\ 2 \mapsto m(2,1) & \quad 4 \mapsto m(2,2) & 6 \mapsto m(2,3) \\ 3 \mapsto m(3,1) & \quad 6 \mapsto m(3,2) & 9 \mapsto m(3,3) \end{align}

Now, you may notice that our mapping has a problem, $2$, $3$, and $6$, all map to more than one object. This mapping is not proper because the original mapping (multiplication) was not injective.

This should come as no surprise however, since we know that unless a number $n$ is prime we can't find a unique solution to

$$n=x_1x_2$$

with $x_1$ and $x_2$ being positive integers. (And even then, we cannot say which of the two is $1$ and which is $n$.)

But when we do division, and solve the equation mentioned above, $2x=6$, we are not working with both $x_1$ and $x_2$ unknown. We are looking for which of the expressions above we can match to $6\mapsto m(2,x)$, You will notice there is only one such entry in the list above, and it has $x=3$ as the second parameter.

It turns out that for division, the 'question' $6\mapsto m(x,2)$ gives the same solution, and that this is the case for all $x_1$ and $x_2$, and so multiplication and division come in what appears to be a pair.

A tiny bit more formally, for a number $n$, the improper map $m^{-1}$ from $\mathbb{N}\mapsto\{1,2,3\}^2$ can be made proper in two ways. We can fix the first value in the tuple, or the second. $\mathbb{N}\mapsto(x_\text{fixed},x_2)$ or $\mathbb{N}\mapsto(x_1,x_\text{fixed})$. These two ways of making the inverse mapping proper happen to be identical.

Asymmetric Inverses: Exponentiation

This is not always the case. You mention logarithms and exponentiation. Let's do a similar exercise, consider $e(x_1,x_2) = {x_1}^{x_2}$ in the same way as before, and let's investigate its behaviour on some choice examples:

\begin{align} e(2,2) \mapsto 4 && e(2,4) \mapsto 16 && e(2,8) \mapsto 256 \\ e(4,2) \mapsto 16 && e(4,4) \mapsto 256 && e(4,8) \mapsto 65536 \\ e(8,2) \mapsto 64&& e(8,4) \mapsto 4096 && e(8,8) \mapsto \text{nope} \end{align}

This is different from $m$ in a big way. Sometimes it plays nice and we have ${x_1}^{x_2}={x_2}^{x_1}$, but sometimes (mostly) that's not the case. The inverse is a perfectly acceptable improper map, but the inverse in the case that one of the arguments of $e$ is known is different depending on the known argument.

The logarithm is only one of the proper inverses that exponentiation has: if we fix the base and let $x_1=b$, so we are inverting $e(b,x_2)$, then we obtain the familiar logarithm $$e^{-1}_{x_1 = b}(n) = \log_b(n)$$

If we fix the exponent, however, we get another reasonable inverse to exponentiation: rooting. $$e^{-1}_{x_2 = p}(n) = \sqrt[p]{n}$$

This is just as valid an inverse to exponentiation as logarithms. Where logarithms ask "to what power must a given base be raised to obtain a given result", $x_2$-th/$p$-th rooting asks "what base when raised to a given power yields a given result?" That is, in $b^p=n$ the logarithm base-$n$ makes $p$ the subject and $p$-th rooting makes $b$ the subject.

$$\log_b(n) = p \qquad \sqrt[p]{n} = b$$

Summary

Unary operations, like successorship, negation, and trigonometric functions, will always have a unique inverse. This 'symmetry' as you call it is a result of the fact that we can always invert the mapping an operation represents and then ask about its behaviour.

Binary operations, like multiplication, exponentiation will always have two inverses. It may appear as though there is only one, but this is a result of the fact that some of the most basic operations produce a pair of inverses which is identical. In the case of exponentiation, you simply never learned a name for the second inverse and so incorrectly assumed that there was only one.

$n$-ary operations will, thus, have $n$ inverses, with $m \leq n$ unique inverses.

JPI
  • 300
  • 1
    Thanks for your clear explanation. The simplicity of reversing the arrows of a mapping function is intuitive. Also, pointing out my lack of awareness and the generalization is helpful. – Ben Aug 27 '20 at 00:53
  • " Consider, for example, something you would solve in your introduction to algebra.

    2x=6

    This question is entirely about inversion. In words it asks: "Knowing that something when multiplied by two is equal to six, determine the original value.""

    Guess and check suffices for the example you gave. You can just plug in natural numbers for x until you find one that makes the equation true. Also, it can get solved on the natural numbers, where the multiplicative inverse of a number might not exist.

    – Doug Spoonwood Aug 27 '20 at 00:54
  • "Binary operations, like multiplication, exponentiation will always have two unique inverses." Huh? I don't see how multiplication on the real numbers has an inverse operation even, since how do we have a solution for x to 0x=0, which gives us an inverse of multiplication? – Doug Spoonwood Aug 27 '20 at 01:03
  • @DougSpoonwood first comment: of course guess and check suffices and I'm aware that the multiplicative inverse does not always exist on the natural numbers, but neither of those facts served the idea I was trying to teach. I chose $2x+6$ so that it could appear naturally later in the discussion and I intentionally avoided using the reals because it is unnecessary clutter when trying to get to the heart of what the OP was asking about. Would you say that guess and check is inadequate for $337x = 129071$ and thus I would have been better served using this as an example? – JPI Aug 27 '20 at 01:04
  • @JPI " Would you say that guess and check is inadequate for 337x=129071 and thus I would have been better served using this as an example?" I don't know. It's probably not feasible to purely use guess and check by hand. But, it might be feasible to purely use guess and check with a computer program for that. It's a better example though. – Doug Spoonwood Aug 27 '20 at 01:08
  • @DougSpoonwood 2nd comment: As for $x\cdot0 = 0$, the inverse mapping is not proper if we include zero. This is exactly the reason that the multiplicative inverse is usually defined on a set excluding zero. 3rd comment: It's clear that you think my answer unsatisfactory, or fundamentally wrong, and unsalvagable by editing. I answered with pedagogy and not precision in mind and feel my answer served its purpose and the OP. If you think it is a poor answer please downvote or flag, I don't think further discussion will be productive. – JPI Aug 27 '20 at 01:18
  • 1
    @JPI: I applaud this answer for focusing on ideas and intuition instead of pedantic technical details at every corner. Just note that "if you know enough math to notice the subtle technical inaccuracies, you know enough to be able to ignore them and get the point." Now, I do have a question: on the exponential side, is it not the case that fixing the exponent $x_2$ to a constant yields taking roots as the inverse operation? The $x_2$-th root to be precise. – ReverseFlowControl Aug 27 '20 at 02:19
  • @ReverseFlow you are right. It's so obvious once you say it. I'll come back and edit the answer later as I'm a bit busy at the moment. – JPI Aug 27 '20 at 02:45