- #1

- 533

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter AxiomOfChoice
- Start date

In summary, according to Gamelin's Complex Analysis, the equivalences f(A) \subseteq A and f^{-1}(A) \subseteq A are equivalent to z_0 \in F iff f(z_0) \in F.f

- #1

- 533

- 1

- #2

- 533

- 1

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]

[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:

- #3

Science Advisor

- 905

- 0

You might want to explain what f and A are. What are domain and codomain of f? A is subset of...?

- #4

- 533

- 1

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

- #5

Science Advisor

- 905

- 0

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?

- #6

- 533

- 1

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?

- #7

Science Advisor

- 905

- 0

* 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

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].

- #8

- 533

- 1

* 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 aresubsetsof 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]?

- #9

Science Advisor

- 905

- 0

You're welcome!Wow. That was very helpful. Thanks a lot.

Too bad, this is not true. A very simple counter-example: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]?

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

- 533

- 1

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

Science Advisor

- 905

- 0

No, then it's true. Proof:But what if we assume [tex]f[/tex] is onto? Do we still have the same problem?

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].

Share:

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 718

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 282

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 614

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 36

- Views
- 2K