Basic (I think) image/preimage questions

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around properties of functions, specifically regarding image and preimage sets, and their implications in the context of Fatou and Julia sets in complex analysis. Participants explore the relationships between subsets and functions, and how these relationships apply to specific mathematical constructs.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks why knowing that x∈A if and only if f(x)∈A implies that f(A) ⊆ A and f⁻¹(A) ⊆ A.
  • Another participant attempts to verify their understanding of the implications of the initial statement regarding images and preimages.
  • Several participants emphasize the need for clarification on the definitions of the function f and the set A, including their domains and codomains.
  • One participant notes that for a function f: A → A, the statements f(A) ⊆ A and f⁻¹(A) ⊆ A are trivial based on definitions of image and preimage.
  • A counter-example is provided to illustrate that F ⊆ (f(F^c))^c does not necessarily imply F ⊆ f(F), prompting further discussion on the conditions under which this might hold.
  • Another participant suggests that if f is onto, the implication may hold true, leading to a proof of this assertion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of certain mathematical statements, particularly regarding the relationship between subsets and their images under functions. There is no consensus on the generality of the implications without additional conditions on the function f.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of specific definitions for the function f and the set A in the initial posts, which affects the clarity of the discussion. The exploration of Fatou and Julia sets introduces additional complexity that may not be fully resolved within the thread.

AxiomOfChoice
Messages
531
Reaction score
1
Suppose I know that [tex]x\in A \Leftrightarrow f(x)\in A[/tex]. Can someone explain why I know, on the strength of this, that [tex]f(A) \subseteq A[/tex] and [tex]f^{-1}(A) \subseteq A[/tex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, I think I've got it (somebody please verify):

[tex] x\in f(A) \Rightarrow f^{-1}(x) \in A \Rightarrow f(f^{-1}(x)) \in A \Rightarrow x\in A[/tex]

[tex] x\in f^{-1}(A) \Rightarrow f(x) \in A \Rightarrow x\in A[/tex]
 
Last edited:
You might want to explain what f and A are. What are domain and codomain of f? A is subset of...?
 
Landau said:
You might want to explain what f and A are. What are domain and codomain of f? A is subset of...?

This is all geared toward showing that the Fatou set [tex]F[/tex] and Julia set [tex]J[/tex] of a rational function are completely invariant. Apparently, since [tex]F = J^c[/tex], showing that [tex]f(F) \subseteq F[/tex] and [tex]f(J) \subseteq J[/tex] amounts to showing [tex]f(F) \subseteq F[/tex] and [tex]f^{-1}(F) \subseteq F[/tex], which is apparently equivalent to showing [tex]z_0 \in F[/tex] iff [tex]f(z_0) \in F[/tex].

The above questions about general [tex]A[/tex] and general [tex]f[/tex] is part of my attempt to understand these equivalences.

I should note that "apparently" is a stand-in for "according to Gamelin's Complex Analysis."
 
I didn't mean for you to explain the specific problem you're working on (Fatou, Julia sets, rational functions, etc.), but the general A and f.

A general function f still has a domain and a codomain. For expressions like [tex]f(A)\subseteq A[/tex] to make sense, A still has to be a subset of the domain of f, and furthermore A has to be a subset of the codomain of f. That's all information you didn't provide; so: what is f and what is A?
 
Landau said:
I didn't mean for you to explain the specific problem you're working on (Fatou, Julia sets, rational functions, etc.), but the general A and f.

A general function f still has a domain and a codomain. For expressions like [tex]f(A)\subseteq A[/tex] to make sense, A still has to be a subset of the domain of f, and furthermore A has to be a subset of the codomain of f. That's all information you didn't provide; so: what is f and what is A?

Ok...well, [tex]A = \mathbb{C}^*[/tex], and [tex]f: \mathbb C^* \to \mathbb C^*[/tex] is a rational function. Does that help?
 
For a function [tex]f:A\to A[/tex], the statements [tex]f(A)\subseteq A[/tex] and [tex]f^{-1}(A)\subseteq A[/tex] are trivial:
* f(A) is just the image of f, and by definition the image of f is a subset of the codomain.
* f^-1(A) is by definition a subset of the domain (it consists of elements x in A such that...)

But you were talking about Fatou and Julia sets, which are subsets of domain and codomain.

So, let [tex]B\subseteq A[/tex].

Recall that [tex]f(B):=\{f(x)\ |\ x\in B\}[/tex]. Therefore, the statement [tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] means that [tex]f(x)\in B[/tex] for all [tex]x\in B[/tex]. Hence, the statement [tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]x\in B\Rightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex].

Recall that [tex]f^{-1}(B):=\{x\in A\ |\ f(x)\in B\}[/tex]. Therefore, the statement [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex] means that [tex]x\in B[/tex] for all [tex]f(x)\in B[/tex]. Hence, the statement [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]f(x)\in B\Rightarrow x\in B[/tex].

Together: ([tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] AND [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex]) is equivalent to ([tex]x\in B\Rightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex] AND [tex]f(x)\in B\Rightarrow x\in B[/tex]), and the last is equivalent to [tex]x\in B\Leftrightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex].
 
Landau said:
For a function [tex]f:A\to A[/tex], the statements [tex]f(A)\subseteq A[/tex] and [tex]f^{-1}(A)\subseteq A[/tex] are trivial:
* f(A) is just the image of f, and by definition the image of f is a subset of the codomain.
* f^-1(A) is by definition a subset of the domain (it consists of elements x in A such that...)

But you were talking about Fatou and Julia sets, which are subsets of domain and codomain.

So, let [tex]B\subseteq A[/tex].

Recall that [tex]f(B):=\{f(x)\ |\ x\in B\}[/tex]. Therefore, the statement [tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] means that [tex]f(x)\in B[/tex] for all [tex]x\in B[/tex]. Hence, the statement [tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]x\in B\Rightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex].

Recall that [tex]f^{-1}(B):=\{x\in A\ |\ f(x)\in B\}[/tex]. Therefore, the statement [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex] means that [tex]x\in B[/tex] for all [tex]f(x)\in B[/tex]. Hence, the statement [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]f(x)\in B\Rightarrow x\in B[/tex].

Together: ([tex]f(B)\subseteq B[/tex] AND [tex]f^{-1}(B)\subseteq B[/tex]) is equivalent to ([tex]x\in B\Rightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex] AND [tex]f(x)\in B\Rightarrow x\in B[/tex]), and the last is equivalent to [tex]x\in B\Leftrightarrow f(x)\in B[/tex].

Wow. That was very helpful. Thanks a lot.

Here's another question, and I think if I'm right here, I can leave this behind: Does [tex]F \subseteq (f(F^c))^c[/tex] imply [tex]F \subseteq f(F)[/tex]?
 
AxiomOfChoice said:
Wow. That was very helpful. Thanks a lot.
You're welcome!
Here's another question, and I think if I'm right here, I can leave this behind: Does [tex]F \subseteq (f(F^c))^c[/tex] imply [tex]F \subseteq f(F)[/tex]?
Too bad, this is not true. A very simple counter-example:
Take A={1,2,3}, define f:A->A by f(1)=f(2)=2 and f(3)=3. For the subset F={1,2} we now have the following:
f(F)={2}
f(F^c)^c=A\{f(3}={1,2,3}\{3}={1,2}.

Hence [tex]F\subseteq f(F^c)^c[/tex] ({1,2} is contained in {1,2}), but [tex]F\subseteq f(F)[/tex] does NOT hold ({1,2} is NOT contained in {2}).
 
  • #10
Landau said:
Too bad, this is not true. A very simple counter-example:
Take A={1,2,3}, define f:A->A by f(1)=f(2)=2 and f(3)=3. For the subset F={1,2} we now have the following:
f(F)={2}
f(F^c)^c=A\{f(3}={1,2,3}\{3}={1,2}.

Hence [tex]F\subseteq f(F^c)^c[/tex] ({1,2} is contained in {1,2}), but [tex]F\subseteq f(F)[/tex] does NOT hold ({1,2} is NOT contained in {2}).

Yeah, I actually thought about this complication after I'd posted. But what if we assume [tex]f[/tex] is onto? Do we still have the same problem?
 
  • #11
AxiomOfChoice said:
But what if we assume [tex]f[/tex] is onto? Do we still have the same problem?
No, then it's true. Proof:

Assume [tex]F\subseteq (f(F^c))^c[/tex]. This means [tex]x\in F\Rightarrow (\forall y\in F^c: x\neq f(y))[/tex].
Let [tex]x\in F[/tex]. Since f is onto, there exists [tex]z\in A[/tex] such that [tex]x=f(z)[/tex]. So [tex]z\in A\backslash F^c=F[/tex], from which it follows that [tex]x\in f(F)[/tex]. We have proven [tex]x\in F\Rightarrow x\in f(F)[/tex], i.e. [tex]F\subseteq f(F)[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K