Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone | Hacker News Reader

It’s confusing for non-mathematicians, but (and you may know that) it is not incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_element:

“In mathematics, the concept of an inverse element generalises the concepts of opposite (−x) and reciprocal (1/x) of numbers.”

View on HN

i think this is just typical natural language ambiguity:

"Inverse Square root" is used to mean "(Multiplicative) Inverse (of the) Square root" as opposed to "(Square root) Inverse"

No, it's confusing for mathematicians because it is directly opposing math terminology. (Which is okay, but confusing.)

It doesnt though, inverse strictly speaking means the multiplicative inverse. The idea was extended in inverse functions eventually which for sake of brevity we also call the inverse. Now f^{-1}(x) and f(x)^{-1} are clearly different beasts the first would describe the square (for square root) while the second describes what quake was doing. Wether you call something an inverse or its full name (multiplicative/functional - inverse) depends on if its unclear from context which was meant.

the function inverse is the multiplicative inverse in the group of automorphisms over sets (when the multiplication operation is functional composition).

Found the Haskell guy.

im so anti-haskell, your comment pained me to hear

I think it's clear we both know that but for the sake of the commenter arguing the two things are different, it's does not help to simply say they the same without giving example, no?

you misunderstand my intent, sorry! i was boosting your point, not arguing against it.

please insert the word "yep," in front of my parent comment

Right, the bang per syllable loss is it's ambiguous, not that it's incorrect. Inverse square root could also mean -(x^0.5) if it meant the additive inverse, and it could mean x^2 if it meant the functional inverse, as said here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com