Timeline for Possible Bug in InverseFunction
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2021 at 20:39 | comment | added | Daniel Huber | I brought this issue to the attention of Wolfram and here is their answer: "Thank you for the clarification. InverseFunction does not currently fully support InterpolationFunction objects. I have added your contact information to a suggestion report on this feature, so that robust InverseFunctions for interpolating functions can be added in future versions of the Wolfram Language, and a separate report so that this can be highlighted in the documentation." | |
| May 17, 2021 at 7:01 | comment | added | Daniel Huber | @ bbgodfrey - :) so I did! | |
| May 16, 2021 at 20:47 | comment | added | bbgodfrey | Apparently, you too have been working on 246073. | |
| May 16, 2021 at 7:33 | vote | accept | Daniel Huber | ||
| May 15, 2021 at 21:33 | answer | added | yarchik | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 15, 2021 at 20:26 | history | edited | Daniel Huber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2021 at 20:10 | comment | added | flinty |
It might be because the inverse is done over the extrapolated part of the interpolation {-.336,3} which is mostly outside {-5, 0} - have a look at Plot[{fun1[z], InverseFunction[fun1][z], z}, {z, -.336, 3}, AspectRatio -> 1, PlotRange -> {{0, 3}, {0, 3}}] - it's symmetrical, so the inverse is correct over this domain, but not where you want it.
|
|
| May 15, 2021 at 20:04 | history | edited | flinty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2021 at 19:59 | history | asked | Daniel Huber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |