| Thread Closed |
[SOLVED] basic proof about inverse images of sets |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Jan1-08, 09:38 AM | #1 |
|
|
[SOLVED] basic proof about inverse images of sets
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
let f map X onto Y, and let A be a subset of X, B subset of Y 1) Prove that if y is in B, then f^(-1) (y) is in f^(-1) (B) 3. The attempt at a solution 1) I think I'm missing some two-line proof, because I'm getting nowhere and this is supposed to be simple. I just don't know where to start, so just a hint would be appreciated. |
| Jan1-08, 10:34 AM | #2 |
|
|
The statement, as given, is not true. Since f is only given as a "map", it may not have an inverse function and so f-1(y) may not exist. Your question, however, is about "inverse images", which exist whether or not f has an inverse. What is true is that f-1({y}) is a subset of f-1(B). {y} is, of course, the set containing the single point y. That statement follows directly from the definition of "inverse image". What is the definition of f-1(B)?
|
| Jan1-08, 03:11 PM | #3 |
|
|
f^-1 (B) := {x in X| f(x) in B}
The book told us that strictly speaking one should write f({y}), but in order to keep simplicity, they just use the notation f(y). What I'm trying to prove is what you have written down. I am sorry I didn't bring that part over correct. but, back to the problem. this would make f^-1 (y) = {x in X| f(x) in {y}} f^-1 (B) = {x in X| f(x) in B} because y is in B, this implies that f^-1 (y) is in f^-1 (B), is that right? Anyway, thanks for your help... I'm not even sure if this is 'calc&beyond'... I'm studying physics and took mathematics as a major too since the start of this year, and this class is given at the same time as the first calculus and linear algebra classes. |
| Jan1-08, 03:29 PM | #4 |
|
|
[SOLVED] basic proof about inverse images of sets |
| Jan1-08, 03:46 PM | #5 |
|
|
haha, I love the fact you could respond so quickly.
The textbook used 'is a subset of' instead of 'is in' on many places (I think in all the places it is necessary), I just went over it too fast so I didn't copy it right because I hasn't realized it made such a difference. I get what you're explaining now, though. Thanks, and SOLVED! |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: [SOLVED] basic proof about inverse images of sets
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Inverse images of schemes | General Math | 0 | ||
| [SOLVED] Basic sets question | General Math | 5 | ||
| [SOLVED] basic math proof by contradiction | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 2 | ||
| Submanifolds as Inverse Images | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 0 | ||
| Basic question about sets | Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics | 1 | ||