Differential Calculus
Inverse Functions and Inverse Trigonometric Derivatives
Inverse trigonometric functions exist so that we can solve equations like or for the angle . Their derivatives are remarkable: although the functions are transcendental, every one of their derivatives is a purely algebraic expression. This section sits on top of the chain rule and implicit differentiation, and the six formulas below are exactly the ones you will later run backwards when you integrate and .
One-to-one functions and the horizontal line test
A function is one-to-one (injective) on a set if
Horizontal line test. is one-to-one exactly when no horizontal line meets the graph of more than once. (It is the graphical restatement of the definition: two intersection points are two inputs with the same output.)
A sufficient condition. If is differentiable on an interval and for every (or throughout ), then is strictly monotone on and therefore one-to-one on . This is sufficient, not necessary: is one-to-one on all of even though . Also note the condition is about a single interval: has on its whole domain and happens to be one-to-one, but on shows why "monotone on each piece" is not enough by itself.
The inverse function
If is one-to-one with range , its inverse is defined by
- and — domains and ranges swap.
- for , and for .
- The graph of is the reflection of the graph of across the line .
- Notation warning: means the inverse function, not . In particular .
Derivative of an inverse function
Theorem (derivative of an inverse). Let be continuous and one-to-one on an open interval , and let , defined on the interval . Suppose that
- and is differentiable at , and
- .
Put . Then is differentiable at and
Every hypothesis earns its keep. Continuity plus injectivity on an interval forces to be strictly monotone, which makes continuous — that continuity is what the proof of the limit needs. If the conclusion is false: is not differentiable at , and the graph of has a vertical tangent there. Example: , , , , and does not exist.
How to use it. You never need a formula for . To get : find the number with (usually by inspection), then compute .
Second derivative. Add the hypothesis that is twice differentiable on a neighbourhood of with there. Differentiating with the chain rule then gives
Branch conventions for the inverse trig functions
Every trig function is periodic, hence badly non-injective, so each must be restricted to an interval on which it is one-to-one before it can be inverted. The choices below are the principal branches used in this course.
| Inverse function | Trig function restricted to | Domain of the inverse | Range (principal values) |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | |||
| on | |||
| on | all real numbers | ||
| on | all real numbers | ||
| on | |||
| on |
Some books choose a different branch for (range — note is included, so that still has a value), which removes the absolute value from its derivative. Everything below uses the table above.
Useful identities (all valid on the stated domains):
Cancellation trap. for all , but only when . For instance , not .
Deriving by implicit differentiation
Let with , so and . Differentiate both sides with respect to : Now convert into . From we get , and the branch decides the sign: on we have , so the sign is correct. Hence At we would need : the derivative does not exist there (vertical tangent), matching the theorem's hypothesis with , .
The same argument for (where the sign analysis really bites). Let , so and . Then , so , and .
- If then and , so .
- If then and , so .
Both cases collapse to the same thing, which is why the absolute value appears:
The six derivatives and their chain-rule versions
Throughout, is differentiable and .
| Valid for | Chain-rule version | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| all real | |||
| all real | |||
Pattern to memorise: the three "co-" functions (, , ) have exactly the negatives of the derivatives of their partners. That follows instantly from the identities , etc.
Worked example 1 — derivative of an inverse
Let . Show is invertible on and find .
for all , so is strictly increasing, hence one-to-one on the interval ; being a polynomial it is continuous and differentiable everywhere. So exists.
We need with . Try : . Since is one-to-one this is the only one, so . Then , and the theorem applies:
Worked example 2 — chain rule, with a surprise
Differentiate for .
Set . By the quotient rule, Also Therefore So , i.e. and have the same derivative. On the interval this forces , and putting gives , so there. (On the constant is different, namely — the zero-derivative argument only works one interval at a time.)
Common mistakes
| Wrong | Right | Why |
|---|---|---|
| where | You must feed the input , not the output . | |
| Without the absolute value the formula gives a negative slope at , but is increasing there. | ||
| The chain-rule factor is not optional. | ||
| The must go inside the radical too. | ||
| is the inverse function, not a reciprocal. | ||
| The output must land in . | ||
| ; you must check the branch before dropping the bars. | ||
| ", so just write " | does not exist | The inverse has a vertical tangent; the theorem's hypothesis fails. |
Two more domain slips worth naming: quoting "for " (it fails at the endpoints, where the expression is undefined), and forgetting that carries a minus sign while does not.
Key terms
- one-to-one (injective) function
- horizontal line test
- strictly monotone
- inverse function
- reflection across the line y = x
- derivative of an inverse function
- vertical tangent
- principal branch
- restricted domain
- arcsin
- arccos
- arctan
- arccot
- arcsec
- arccsc
- implicit differentiation
- chain rule
- Pythagorean identity
- domain restriction
- constancy theorem (zero derivative on an interval)
Practice Problems
Use the horizontal line test to decide whether each function is one-to-one on all of :
(a) (b)
For any function that fails, give the largest interval containing on which it is one-to-one.
Show hint
A horizontal line meeting the graph twice means two different inputs share an output. The sign of the derivative tells you whether the graph can ever turn around.
Show answer
(a) Differentiate: . Since , we have for every real , so is strictly increasing on the interval .
A strictly increasing function satisfies: if then , so . Hence no horizontal line can meet the graph twice, and is one-to-one on .
(b) is a parabola opening upward with vertex where , i.e. . To exhibit a failure concretely, take the horizontal line : The line meets the graph at and , so is not one-to-one on .
Largest interval containing : exactly when , and when , so the graph turns around at . On the function is strictly increasing, hence one-to-one, and . Any larger interval containing would have to contain points on both sides of , and by symmetry about it would then contain a pair , with .
Answer: .
Evaluate exactly, using the principal branches:
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
Show hint
For each one, write down the required output interval first, then find the angle in that interval with the right trig value.
Show answer
(a) We need with . The angle is (and is indeed in the range). .
(b) We need with . The reference angle is , and cosine is negative in the second quadrant, so . .
(c) We need with : . . (Note also has tangent but is outside the principal range.)
(d) We need with , i.e. . In that gives , which lies in . .
(e) First the inside: . Then . The answer is , not , because so the cancellation law does not apply.
(f) Let , so and . Then On cosine is , so we take the sign. .
Differentiate, and state the interval of on which your formula is valid:
(a) (b) (c)
Show hint
Each is a chain rule: identify the inside function , compute , and remember that (not ) goes into the derivative formula.
Show answer
(a) Let , so . Using : Valid where , i.e. , i.e. .
(b) Let , so . Using : Valid for all real (the denominator is never zero).
(c) Let , so (for ). Using , and : Valid where and , i.e. . (At the factor blows up; at the derivative blows up.)
Let . Show that has an inverse on , and compute without finding a formula for .
Show hint
First check the sign of to justify invertibility, then hunt for the input whose output is .
Show answer
Step 1 — invertibility. for all , so is strictly increasing on the interval and therefore one-to-one; it is a polynomial, so it is continuous and differentiable everywhere. Hence exists on the range of , which is all of (a cubic with positive leading coefficient has and , so by the Intermediate Value Theorem it attains every real value).
Step 2 — find with . Try small integers: . Since is one-to-one this is the only such input, so .
Step 3 — apply the theorem. is differentiable at and , so the derivative-of-an-inverse theorem applies:
Check. Near , , so the average rate of change of is about . The inverse's slope is the reciprocal, about , and . Consistent.
Answer: .
Let .
(a) Explain why is invertible on .
(b) Find the equation of the tangent line to at the point where .
Show hint
Bound using . For (b) you need both the point on the inverse's graph and the slope there.
Show answer
(a) . Since for all , we get So is strictly increasing on the interval , hence one-to-one; it is continuous and differentiable everywhere. Therefore exists.
(b) Point. We need , i.e. the with . Try : . Good, so and the point of tangency is .
Slope. , so the theorem gives
Line. Point-slope form through with slope :
Sanity check. The tangent to at is , and reflecting a line of slope through across gives a line of slope through — exactly what we found.
Answer: .
Derive by implicit differentiation. State the branch you use, and explain why — unlike the derivation — no sign discussion is needed here. Then explain why the formula is valid for every real .
Show hint
Write , take tangent of both sides, and differentiate. Which Pythagorean identity converts into something in ?
Show answer
Set-up. Let . By the principal-branch definition this means and may be any real number.
Differentiate implicitly with respect to , remembering and the chain rule:
Convert to . The Pythagorean identity gives Therefore
Why no sign discussion? In the derivation we met to the first power and had to recover it from , choosing the sign from the branch. Here the identity delivers — an even power — directly in terms of . No square root is ever taken, so no ambiguous sign arises.
Why valid for all ? Two things must hold. First, is differentiable at every . Second, the derivative-of-an-inverse theorem needs : indeed , so it is never zero on the branch. Since maps onto all of , every real is covered, and always. Contrast this with , whose derivative fails at precisely because .
Differentiate and simplify. On what interval is your formula valid? Evaluate and interpret it.
Show hint
This is a product; you will need the chain rule (or the power rule with ) on the second factor.
Show answer
Product rule. Write with and .
for .
for .
Then
Validity. Both and require , so the formula holds on . At the function is still defined (), but the derivative expression is undefined. Only one one-sided derivative is even available at each endpoint, and it fails to exist: with we have , so and the same computation at also gives . The graph meets the -axis vertically at both ends.
Value at . . Since , the curve passes through the origin with slope exactly , i.e. it is tangent to the line there.
Numerical check at . The formula gives A symmetric difference quotient: and , so which agrees with to the accuracy a step of can deliver.
Answer: on , and .
Differentiate using the branch convention . Simplify the absolute value fully and state the domain of the derivative. Then evaluate and check the sign is plausible.
Show hint
Apply the chain rule with , keeping the exactly as the formula demands before you simplify it.
Show answer
Chain rule. With we have , and So using (legitimate because ).
Domain. The formula for requires , i.e. , i.e. (The function itself is also defined at , but has a vertical tangent there.)
Value at .
Sign check. Under this branch, . For , as increases toward , decreases toward , and is decreasing, so increases (from up to ). So the derivative must be positive at — and it is. Note that had we dropped the absolute value and written , we would have obtained , the wrong sign.
Numerical check. . At : ; at : . The difference quotient is , matching .
Answer: for , and .
Prove that for every . Be careful to say which theorem you use, on which interval, and how you handle the endpoints where the derivatives do not exist.
Show hint
Give the sum a name and differentiate it on the open interval. Then you need a theorem that upgrades "zero derivative" to "constant".
Show answer
Set-up. Define on . Both and are continuous on the closed interval (they are inverses of functions continuous and strictly monotone on and respectively), so is continuous on .
Differentiate on the open interval. For ,
Apply the constancy theorem. The relevant statement is the corollary of the Mean Value Theorem: if is continuous on , differentiable on , and for all , then is constant on . Note that this version requires differentiability only on the open interval, plus continuity on the closed one — exactly the situation here with . So is constant on all of , endpoints included, even though does not exist.
Identify the constant. Evaluate at the convenient point :
Therefore for all .
Direct endpoint verification (optional). Both agree, as they must.
Corollary. Differentiating gives — this is the cleanest way to remember why the "co-" functions pick up the minus sign.
Let , defined for .
(a) Compute and simplify.
(b) Is constant on its whole domain? Determine explicitly, and explain carefully what the zero-derivative theorem does and does not give you here.
Show hint
Differentiate with the chain rule on the second term and clear the compound fraction. Then look hard at the shape of the domain before concluding anything about constancy.
Show answer
(a) The second term has inside function , so . Then Multiply numerator and denominator of the second fraction by (valid since ): Hence
(b) The domain is — not an interval. The MVT corollary says: if on an interval, then is constant on that interval. It says nothing across a gap in the domain. So we may conclude only that is constant on and constant on , possibly with different constants.
On : evaluate at :
On : evaluate at :
The two constants genuinely differ, so is not constant on its whole domain:
Spot-check with a second point. At : and ; their sum is . At : and ; sum . Both confirm the case split.
Moral. "Derivative zero everywhere on the domain" implies "constant" only when the domain is a single interval. Writing for all is the classic error here.
Using the branch convention , derive by implicit differentiation. Treat the two pieces of the range separately and show explicitly how the absolute value appears. Then confirm the result a second way using an identity.
Show hint
Start from and differentiate. When you replace by , decide the sign separately on each piece of the range.
Show answer
Set-up. Let , so
Implicit differentiation. Since , This requires , i.e. , i.e. , i.e. . So from the outset the formula is restricted to .
Convert to . From we get and the branch decides the sign.
Case 1: . Here and , so and . Also , so . Then
Case 2: . Here and , so and . Also , so . Then
Both cases give the same expression, which is exactly why an absolute value — and not a — appears:
Second derivation via an identity. For the two branch conventions in use satisfy (check: at , and ; at , and ; both sum to ). Differentiating and using gives the same answer.
Sign sanity check. At the formula gives . Numerically, : at , ; at , . The difference quotient is which agrees with to the precision the seven-decimal inputs allow. Matches.
Let and let .
(a) Justify that exists and is twice differentiable near .
(b) Find .
(c) Derive the formula (where ) and use it to compute exactly.
Show hint
For (c), differentiate the identity with the chain rule, then substitute what you already know from (b).
Show answer
(a) . Since and , we have for all , so is strictly increasing on , hence one-to-one. As a polynomial it is infinitely differentiable, and , so by the Intermediate Value Theorem its range is all of . Since is never zero, the derivative-of-an-inverse theorem applies at every point, and because is itself a composition/quotient of differentiable functions with non-vanishing denominator, is twice differentiable everywhere — in particular near .
(b) Find with : try , giving . Since is one-to-one, . Now so
(c) Deriving the second-derivative formula. Start from the identity valid on an interval around : Differentiate with the chain rule (outer power , then the derivative of ): Now substitute : Evaluating at where :
Now compute. , so . With , , : (The reduction: , and , .)
Check of the formula on a case we can solve. Take on , so and . The formula with gives . Agreed.
Answers: and .
