- #1
- 533
- 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]?
You might want to explain what f and A are. What are domain and codomain of f? A is subset of...?
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?
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].
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]?
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}).
No, then it's true. Proof:But what if we assume [tex]f[/tex] is onto? Do we still have the same problem?