Invertible functions and inverse of a function
Some functions can be run backwards and some cannot. If turns an input into an output , an inverse would have to turn that same back into exactly the it came from — and that only works cleanly if no two different inputs ever landed on the same output, and if every possible output was actually hit. Those two requirements are exactly one-one-ness and onto-ness, the ideas you have already met for functions in general. Put them together and you get invertibility: a function is invertible precisely when it is a bijection, and its inverse is the unique function that undoes it in both directions. This is not just abstract bookkeeping. The same "restrict the domain until it becomes invertible" trick you will practise below is the exact move used later to define the principal value branches of inverse trigonometric functions such as and . Under the current CBSE syllabus this specific topic is not separately examined, but understanding it now makes that later chapter far less mysterious.
A function is invertible, with a well-defined inverse , exactly when it is one-one and onto — a bijection — so every output traces back to exactly one input.
The core idea
What "invertible" means. A function is called invertible if there exists a function such that composing them either way gives you back where you started:
where: is the domain of , is its codomain, ranges over , and ranges over . When such a exists it is unique, and it is called the inverse of , written . It is worth pausing on why uniqueness matters: if two different functions and both satisfied these conditions, they would have to agree at every point of , so really there is only ever one candidate worth looking for.
Why bijection is the exact condition. One-one-ness is what lets you reverse without ambiguity: if two different inputs could give the same output , then "the" inverse would not know which one to send back to. Onto-ness is what lets the inverse be defined everywhere on : if some were never hit by , then would have nothing sensible to equal. A function missing either property cannot be invertible in the strict two-sided sense above; a function with both properties always can be, by simply reading the graph of backwards.
How to actually find . Once you know is invertible, the mechanical recipe is short: write , solve this equation algebraically for in terms of , and then rename the letters so the answer reads as a function of its own input. That renamed expression is . The figure below shows the picture behind the algebra — the arrows of simply run in reverse for .
The core idea continued: no shortcuts around bijection
A common instinct is to try writing an inverse for any formula that looks solvable, but the definition demands the two-sided composition condition above hold for the whole domain and codomain, not just for a few convenient points. If fails one-one-ness or onto-ness on the sets you were given, "" simply does not exist for that as stated — the fix, when one is possible, is to shrink the domain and codomain until both properties hold, which is exactly the move in the worked example below.
The goal of this derivation is to take a specific linear function , , and establish — with a complete, checkable argument rather than a guess — that it is one-one, that it is onto, and therefore invertible, before extracting an explicit formula for and verifying that formula by direct substitution back into the composition condition.
Step 1. Check one-one-ness. Suppose for some . Then , so subtracting from both sides gives , and dividing by gives . Since equal outputs forced equal inputs, is one-one.
Step 2. Check onto-ness. Take any target value and ask whether some satisfies . Solving gives , which is a perfectly good real number for every real , and substituting back confirms . So every is hit, and is onto.
Step 3. Conclude invertibility. Since is both one-one and onto , it is a bijection, and by the theorem stated above it is invertible.
Step 4. Extract and check the inverse. Step 2 already expressed in terms of as ; renaming the input letter so it reads as a function gives
Checking: , and likewise . Both composition conditions hold, confirming the inverse is correct.
Worked example
Let be defined by . Show is invertible on this restricted domain and codomain, and find .
Step 1. Recall the trap. On the full sets , is neither one-one (since ) nor onto (negative numbers are never reached). Restricting both the domain and the codomain to is what rescues it.
Step 2. Check one-one on . Suppose and , i.e. . Factor: . So either , or . Because , the second case is only possible when — which again gives . Either way, , so is one-one on .
Step 3. Check onto . Take any . Choosing (a well-defined non-negative real number since ) gives . So every is hit, and is onto.
Step 4. Write and check the inverse. With both properties established, is invertible on , and
Check: for , and for . The inverse of on is .
Competitive stretch
The same restriction idea reappears, with a twist, for : on the full real line it is neither one-one nor onto , but restricted to the domain and codomain it becomes a bijection, and its inverse there is exactly the principal value branch you will meet in the next chapter — the restricted interval is chosen precisely so one-one-ness and onto-ness both hold.
Common traps
- Writing down "" before checking is one-one and onto — invertibility must be established, not assumed from the formula alone.
- Confusing the inverse function with the reciprocal ; the superscript here means "undo the function," not "raise to the power minus one."
- Ignoring the stated domain and codomain and testing only the "natural" formula — as Worked Example shows, is invertible on even though it is not invertible on all of .
- Skipping the final check and after solving for the inverse — this is the step that catches sign errors and algebraic slips before they cost marks.
Ask the tutor: Want to see how this same domain-restriction trick is used to define , and the other inverse trigonometric functions, or want more practice finding inverses of algebraic functions step by step?
If f is only one-one but not onto, can I still call it invertible in some sense?
Not in the strict sense used here, where must be defined on the whole codomain . What you can do is shrink the codomain to the actual range of — the set of values really hits — and then becomes onto that smaller set automatically, since nothing is left uncovered. Once you do that, a one-one function is onto its own range, so it is invertible when viewed as a function into its range. This is exactly the spirit of restricting to : you are choosing the codomain to match what the function can actually produce, combined with restricting the domain to keep it one-one too.
Why isn't this topic tested directly on my CBSE board exam?
Under the current CBSE Class 12 syllabus (2025-26), invertible functions and the formal computation of were removed from the Relations and Functions chapter during a curriculum rationalisation, even though they appeared in the original NCERT textbook. So you will not see a question asking you to prove a given function invertible and find its inverse by name. It is still worth understanding, though, because the identical reasoning — restrict a function until it is one-one and onto, then read its graph backwards — is exactly how the principal value branches of inverse trigonometric functions are defined, and that chapter is very much on the syllabus.
How is this different from just solving an equation for x?
Solving for is the mechanical last step, but by itself it does not tell you an inverse function exists. You could solve for over all reals and get — two answers for one input, which is not a function at all. The invertibility check (one-one and onto) is what guarantees the algebra produces exactly one valid value of for every in the codomain, so that "solve for " actually defines a genuine function rather than an ambiguous multi-valued expression.