1

this is my first time making a post on this website so all feedback is highly appreciated.

I have recently started university and I struggle a bit with wording answers as I am not use to it yet. If anyone could take a quick look at my workings and wording to this question it would be much obliged.

http://prntscr.com/gvr3bq

If anything is wrong with how I have formatted the answer or any lines are incorrect please do not hesitate to mention it.

Mathlete
  • 49
  • I believe most users will appreciate your question more if you post your workings (and the question irself) here, even if it takes more time. If you need a quick reference for math formatting, you can look here: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/mathjax-basic-tutorial-and-quick-reference – j3M Oct 10 '17 at 18:55
  • I added my entire thought process on the document, everything I thought about is in that document, and it says the question at the top if im not mistaken, correct me if im wrong – Mathlete Oct 10 '17 at 22:01

1 Answers1

1

That's fine. It can be done more compactly; the following would be completely acceptable as a proof.

We show that $f(g(1)) \not = 1$ (from which it follows that $f$ is not inverse to $g$, since $f$ is defined to be inverse to $g$ if $f(g(x)) = x$ for all $x$, and $g(f(x)) = x$ for all $x$). Indeed, $g(1) = 3$, and $f(3) = 269$, so $f(g(1)) = 269$.

Patrick Stevens
  • 36,135
  • Thanks you for the answer James, I have adjusted it to include composite notation as you have, does it still read correctly? http://prntscr.com/gvshdb. Also do you think it would achieve full marks if it were a test question? if so why not. – Mathlete Oct 10 '17 at 20:21
  • @Mathlete I don't think I've ever been called James before :P I don't think there's anything wrong with your answer, at least. I can't say anything about how your teacher would mark it. – Patrick Stevens Oct 10 '17 at 21:34
  • ah well, thanks for the help man – Mathlete Oct 10 '17 at 21:59