<Question>
Let $f$ be defined by  \[f(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
3-x & \text{ if } x \leq 3, \\
-x^3+2x^2+3x & \text{ if } x>3.
\end{array}
\right.\]Calculate $f^{-1}(0)+f^{-1}(6)$.
</Question>

<think>
<Plan_1>
Okay, so I need to find f inverse of 0 plus f inverse of 6 for this piecewise function. Let me start by recalling that to find the inverse of a function, I need to find the value of x such that f(x) equals the given y value. Since the function is piecewise, I should check both pieces for each inverse calculation.

First, let's tackle f inverse of 0. That means I need to find x such that f(x) = 0. The function has two parts: one for x ≤ 3 and another for x > 3. I'll check both parts.

Starting with the first part: 3 - x when x ≤ 3. Setting this equal to 0: 3 - x = 0.
Solving for x gives x = 3. Since 3 is equal to 3, this is within the domain of this piece. So that's one possible solution.

Now check the second part: -x³ + 2x² + 3x when x > 3. Set this equal to 0: -x³ + 2x² + 3x = 0. Let me factor this equation.

<prompt_1.1> Solve the equation for the second part of the piecewise function to find if there is another solution for f(x) = 0. </prompt_1.1>
-----

Now moving on to f inverse of 6. Again, find x such that f(x) = 6. Check both pieces.

First, the left piece: 3 - x = 6.

<prompt_1.2> Solve the equation for the first part of the piecewise function to find x such that f(x) = 6. </prompt_1.2>

Now check the second part for x > 3: -x³ + 2x² + 3x = 6.

<prompt_1.3> Solve the equation for the second part of the piecewise function to find x such that f(x) = 6. </prompt_1.3>
</Plan_1>

<Execution_1>
<execution_1.1>
Factor out an x: x(-x² + 2x + 3) = 0. So either x = 0 or -x² + 2x + 3 = 0. But since we're looking at x > 3, x = 0 is not in this interval. Let's solve -x² + 2x + 3 = 0. Multiply both sides by -1 to make it easier: x² - 2x - 3 = 0. Factor this quadratic: (x - 3)(x + 1) = 0. So solutions are x = 3 and x = -1. But again, we need x > 3, so neither of these solutions is in the desired interval. Therefore, there's no solution from the second part.

Therefore, f inverse of 0 is 3.
</execution_1.1>

<execution_1.2>
Solving gives x = 3 - 6 = -3. But wait, x has to be ≤ 3 here. -3 is indeed ≤ 3, so that's valid. So x = -3 is another solution.

But hold on, the second part is for x > 3, so even though solving the equation gives us maybe other roots, we have to consider only x > 3. Let's check if there are other solutions in x > 3.
</execution_1.2>

<execution_1.3>
So, -x³ + 2x² + 3x - 6 = 0. Let's see if I can factor this. Maybe try possible rational roots. The possible roots are factors of 6 over factors of 1: ±1, ±2, ±3, ±6.

Testing x=1: -1 + 2 + 3 -6 = -2 ≠ 0.

x=2: -8 + 8 + 6 -6 = -2 ≠ 0.

x=3: -27 + 18 + 9 -6 = -6 ≠ 0.

x=6: -216 + 72 + 18 -6 = -132 ≠ 0.

x=-1: 1 + 2 -3 -6 = -6 ≠0.

Hmm, none of these are working. Maybe x= sqrt something? Alternatively, use rational root theorem. Wait, maybe I made a mistake in possible roots. Let's try x= sqrt(3)? No, that's irrational. Alternatively, use synthetic division or another method.

Alternatively, maybe factor by grouping. Let's try:

-x³ + 2x² + 3x -6 = 0

Group as (-x³ + 2x²) + (3x -6) = 0

Factor: -x²(x - 2) + 3(x - 2) = 0

Factor out (x - 2): (x - 2)(-x² + 3) = 0

So, solutions are x = 2 or -x² +3 =0 → x²=3 → x=√3 or x=-√3.

But remember, this is the second piece where x >3. However, the solutions here are x=2, which is not greater than 3, and x=√3 ≈1.732, which is also not greater than 3, and x=-√3, which is negative. Therefore, there are no solutions in this interval. So the only solution is x=4 from the first part.
</execution_1.3>
</Execution_1>

<Plan_2>
Based on execution_1.1:
Hmm, maybe I missed something here. Let me double-check.

Wait, for the first part, when x ≤ 3, 3 - x is a linear function decreasing as x increases. At x = 3, it's 0. For x less than 3, it's positive. So 0 is achieved only at x = 3 in this interval.

<prompt_2.1> Verify the solution for f inverse of 0 by analyzing the behavior of the first piece of the function. </prompt_2.1>
</Plan_2>

<Execution_2>
<execution_2.1>
The second part is a cubic function for x > 3. Let me plug in x = 4: -64 + 32 + 12 = -20. At x = 3, the limit from the right would be -27 + 18 + 9 = 0. But since x > 3, at x approaching 3 from the right, the function approaches 0, but when x = 4, it's already -20. Let me check x = 3.5: -(3.5)^3 + 2*(3.5)^2 + 3*(3.5). Let's compute that: 3.5^3 is 42.875, so -42.875 + 2*(12.25) + 10.5 = -42.875 + 24.5 + 10.5 = -42.875 + 35 = -7.875. So it's decreasing from 0 at x=3+ to -7.875 at x=3.5. So in the interval x >3, the function is decreasing from 0 to negative values. Therefore, f(x) in the second piece can only take values less than or equal to 0. Therefore, f(x) = 0 is only achieved at x=3 in the first piece. Therefore, f inverse of 0 is 3.
</execution_2.1>
</Execution_2>

<Plan_3>
Based on execution_2.1, execution_1.2:
Wait, but hold on. Let me check the second piece again. The second piece is for x > 3. If I set -x³ + 2x² + 3x = 0, maybe there are roots beyond x=3? Wait, but when x >3, let's see the behavior of the cubic. Let's evaluate the cubic at x=4: -64 + 32 + 12 = -20. At x=5: -125 + 50 + 15 = -60. So as x increases, the cubic becomes more negative. But maybe between x=3 and x=4, does it cross zero? Wait, at x=3, the value is -27 + 18 + 9 = 0. But x=3 is included in the first piece.
So for x >3, the function starts just below x=3 with value approaching 0 from the negative side? Wait, no. Let me check the limit as x approaches 3 from the right.

<prompt_3.1> Analyze the behavior of the second piece of the function around x=3 and confirm the solution for f inverse of 0. </prompt_3.1>
</Plan_3>

<Execution_3>
<execution_3.1>
The second piece at x=3 would be -27 + 18 + 9 = 0, but since x>3, it's not included. So immediately to the right of 3, the function is -3³ + 2*3² + 3*3 = -27 + 18 + 9 = 0, but since x has to be greater than 3, the function starts just above x=3 with value approaching 0, but actually, plugging x=3.0001 would give a value slightly less than 0? Wait, let's compute at x=3.1:

-(3.1)^3 + 2*(3.1)^2 + 3*(3.1). Let's compute:

3.1^3 = 29.791, so -29.791 + 2*(9.61) + 9.3 = -29.791 + 19.22 + 9.3 = (-29.791 + 19.22) + 9.3 = (-10.571) + 9.3 = -1.271. So it's negative. So as x increases beyond 3, the function decreases from 0 to negative values. Therefore, there's no x >3 where f(x)=0. Therefore, f inverse of 0 is indeed 3.
</execution_3.1>
</Execution_3>

<Plan_4>
Based on execution_3.1, execution_1.3:
For f inverse of 6: First piece, 3 - x = 6. So x = 3 -6 = -3.
Which is ≤3, so that's valid.
-----

Based on execution_1.1, execution_1.2, execution_1.3:
Therefore, f inverse(0) + f inverse(6) = -3 +4=1.

But wait, let me check again. Maybe I made a mistake in the second inverse.

<prompt_4.1> Re-evaluate the calculations for f inverse of 6 and confirm the final answer. </prompt_4.1>

But let me check once more. For f inverse of 6, first piece: 3 -x=6 => x=-3.

<prompt_4.2> Perform a final verification of the calculations for f inverse of 6 and conclude the solution. </prompt_4.2>
</Plan_4>

<Execution_4>
<execution_4.1>
Let me check the second piece again. For f inverse of 6, in the second piece, we set -x³ + 2x² +3x=6. We found that there were no roots in x>3, so the only solution is x=-3. So adding them gives -3 +4=1.

But wait, let me check if the second piece could have another solution for f(x)=6. Let's analyze the second piece: -x³ +2x² +3x. Let's see its derivative to check if it's increasing or decreasing.

The derivative is -3x² +4x +3. Setting this equal to zero: -3x² +4x +3=0 → 3x² -4x -3=0. Discriminant: 16 + 36=52. Solutions: [4 ± sqrt(52)]/6 = [4 ± 2*sqrt(13)]/6 = [2 ± sqrt(13)]/3. sqrt(13) is approx 3.606, so the critical points are (2 +3.606)/3≈1.868 and (2 -3.606)/3≈-0.535. So in the domain x>3, the derivative at x=3: -3*(9) +4*(3) +3= -27 +12 +3= -12. So the function is decreasing at x=3. As x increases, the derivative becomes more negative since the -3x² term dominates. Therefore, the function is decreasing for x>3, starting from f(3)=0 and going to negative infinity. Therefore, it never reaches 6 again. So yes, only x=-3 and x=4.
</execution_4.1>

<execution_4.2>
Second piece: -x³ +2x² +3x=6. We set it equal to 6, leading to -x³ +2x² +3x -6=0. Factored as (x-2)(-x² +3)=0. So x=2 or x=±√3. But x>3, so none of these are valid. Therefore, only x=-3 and x=4. So sum is 1.

But wait, let me check if the function is invertible. The function is piecewise, but each piece is strictly decreasing? For x ≤3, f(x)=3 -x, which is linear decreasing. For x>3, the derivative of the cubic is f'(x)= -3x² +4x +3. Let's check if this is always negative for x>3. Let's compute the derivative at x=4: -3*(16) +4*4 +3= -48 +16 +3= -29. Which is negative. The derivative is a quadratic opening downward (since coefficient of x² is negative). The maximum of the derivative occurs at x= -b/(2a) = -4/(2*(-3))= 2/3. So for x>3, the derivative is decreasing (since the parabola opens downward) and since at x=4 it's -29, it will continue to decrease. Therefore, the cubic piece is strictly decreasing for x>3. Therefore, both pieces are strictly decreasing, so the function is invertible. Therefore, each y value has exactly one x value. Therefore, our previous calculations are correct. So the answer is 1.
</execution_4.2>
</Execution_4>

<Final_answer>
Therefore, $f^{-1}(0) + f^{-1}(6) = \boxed{1}$.
</Final_answer>
</think>