Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

include trig, hyptrig functions #22

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

JeffreySarnoff
Copy link
Member

sin(x) <-> asin(x), tanh(x) <-> atanh(x), ...
I was not sure about how you were testing, so there is no change to the tests.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 3, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #22 (43164cb) into master (34c1adf) will decrease coverage by 39.34%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##            master      #22       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage   100.00%   60.65%   -39.35%     
============================================
  Files            3        3               
  Lines           74      122       +48     
============================================
  Hits            74       74               
- Misses           0       48       +48     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/inverse.jl 53.39% <0.00%> (-46.61%) ⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

@oschulz
Copy link
Collaborator

oschulz commented Aug 3, 2022

Hi @JeffreySarnoff , the problem with the trig functions is that there's no fully bi-directional inverse, which is what the current InverseFunctions.jl API expects. Doesn't mean it has to stay that way - we've been talking about we could express something like an "invertible domain" of a function, and there's an open issue about adding right/left inverses (#10). Until now there just hasn't been much pressure (in the form of use cases) to do anything about it. :-) You're very welcome to join in and help figure out a clean but simple way to evolve the package in that direction!

CC @devmotion

@JeffreySarnoff
Copy link
Member Author

no problem -- I expected there was a reason .. the inverses get more conformable with complex numbers -- and branchcutting

@oschulz
Copy link
Collaborator

oschulz commented Aug 3, 2022

Feel free to reopen this in the future - would definitely be good to be able to implements inverses for such functions, we just have to figure out a clean way to do it. :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants