Confirm Invtblty Property of Cont & Smooth Funcs

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the continuity of a function f does not guarantee the continuity of its inverse f^-1, using the example of a map from [0, 2pi) to the circle. While f is continuous, small changes in f can lead to large jumps in the inverse, demonstrating that continuity does not automatically transfer. The continuity of f^-1 can be established under specific conditions, such as when the domain is compact and the range is Hausdorff. The conversation also references the Inverse Function Theorem, highlighting scenarios where the derivative of f at a point can affect the derivative of its inverse. Overall, the continuity of both a function and its inverse requires careful consideration of additional properties.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
My textbook always says things like "[...] such that f is invertible, continuous, and f^-1 is continuous also" and " [...] such that g is invertible, smooth, and g^-1 is smooth also"

But doesn't it follow from "f is conitnuous" that "f^-1 is continuous", and same thing for smooth?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No. The standard counterexample is the map from [0,2pi) to the circle (the natural one), which is a bijection, and is continuous since, roughly speaking, small changes in x give small changes in f(x). But in the circle, a small change about f(0) gives a very large change in the inverse image, which will suddenly jimp from just above 0 to just below 2pi.

There are theorems that the continuity of f^-1 follows from that of f under certain additional assumptions, like if the domain is compact and the range is Hausdorff, as is the case, for example, with all functions from a closed interval to R, ie, the functions you usually graph.
 
Of course it doesn't follow. Exercise, think of lots of counter example (hint, the inveser function theorem. If f is invertible and f'(0)=0, then what about the derivative of the inverse of f at zero?)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top