Implicit Function Theorem Concludes the Existence of Explicit Functions?

85 Views Asked by At

On the Wikipedia statement for the Implicit Function Theorem (IFT), part of the conclusion is the existence of a function $g(\vec x)$. Is this $g(\vec x)$ not an explicit function for $\vec y$ of $\vec x$?

I am also confused by the statement in the First Example of the same article "The purpose of the implicit function theorem is to tell us the existence of functions like $g_1(x)$ and $g_2(x)$, even in situations where we cannot write down explicit formulas." But if $g_1(x)$ and $g_2(x)$ are explicit functions, why can't we write them down?