Composition of Inverse Functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exercise from Micheal C. Gemignani's "Elementary Topology" regarding the composition of inverse functions. Participants are examining the validity of the statement that for functions f and g, the equality (g ∘ f)⁻¹(A) = f⁻¹(g⁻¹(A)) holds for any subset A of W, with a focus on the conditions under which this equality is true.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the equality may only hold if A is in the image of g, proposing a counterexample to illustrate this point.
  • Another participant questions the use of W, asking whether g maps to all of W or only into W, indicating potential confusion regarding the problem's conditions.
  • It is noted that the proof can only show that f⁻¹(g⁻¹(A)) is a subset of (g ∘ f)⁻¹(A), implying that additional conditions are necessary for equality.
  • Several participants agree that if g(f(x)) is in A, then f(x) must be in g⁻¹(A) by definition, but there is a request for clarification on the definitions being used.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their counterexample and expresses a desire to continue exploring the problem despite this.
  • Another participant requests a clearer justification for each step in the proof presented, indicating that the current explanation lacks clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions necessary for the equality to hold, with some believing it is contingent on A being in the image of g. There is no consensus on the validity of the original statement or the proposed counterexample.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of definitions, particularly regarding the mapping of g and the implications for the equality of the inverse functions. There are unresolved questions about the completeness of the proofs and the assumptions made.

John Creighto
Messages
487
Reaction score
2
In Micheal C. Gemignani, "Elementary Topology" in section 1.1 there is the following exercise

2)
i)
If [tex]f:S \rightarrow T[/tex] and [tex]G: T \rightarrow W[/tex], then [tex](g \circ f)^{-1}(A) = f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/tex] for any [tex]A \subset W[/tex].

I think the above is only true if A is in the image of g yet the book says to prove the above. I have what I believe is a counter example. Any comments? I will give people two days to prove the above or post a counter example. After this time I'll post my counter example for further comment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How is [tex]\mathbf{W}[/tex] used here - does [tex]g[/tex] map to all of [tex]\mathbf{W}[/tex] or only into [tex]\mathbf{W}[/tex]? That could explain the possible confusion.
 
The way the problem has been written you can only prove that:

...f^-1[g^-1(A)] IS a subset of (g*f)^-1(A) i.e the right hand side of the above is a subset of the left hand side

FOR the above to be equal we must have that: f(S)={ f(x): xεS } MUST be a subset of

g^-1(A)
 
John Creighto said:
In Micheal C. Gemignani, "Elementary Topology" in section 1.1 there is the following exercise

2)
i)
If [tex]f:S \rightarrow T[/tex] and [tex]G: T \rightarrow W[/tex], then [tex](g \circ f)^{-1}(A) = f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/tex] for any [tex]A \subset W[/tex].

I think the above is only true if A is in the image of g yet the book says to prove the above. I have what I believe is a counter example. Any comments? I will give people two days to prove the above or post a counter example. After this time I'll post my counter example for further comment.

xε[tex]f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/tex]<====> xεS & f(x)ε[tex]g^{-1}(A)[/tex]====> xεS & g(f(x))εA <====> xε[tex](g\circ f)^{-1}(A)[/tex]

since [tex]g^{-1}(A)[/tex] = { y: yεT & g(y)εΑ}

ΙΝ the above proof all arrows are double excep one which is single and for that arrow to become double we must have :

........f(S)[tex]\subseteq g^{-1}(A)[/tex]........

and then we will have ;

[tex](g\circ f)^{-1}(A) = f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/tex]
 
Let [itex]x \in (g \circ f)^{-1}(A)[/itex]. Then [itex]x \in S[/itex] with [itex]g(f(x)) \in A[/itex]. This means [itex]f(x) \in g^{-1}(A)[/itex] and thus [itex]x \in f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/itex].

The other direction has been shown.

How are those not all double arrows, evagelos? If [itex]g(f(x)) \in A[/itex], then certainly [itex]f(x) \in g^{-1}(A)[/itex] by definition. We already know that [itex]f(x) \in T[/itex].

I'm curious as to what this supposed counter-example is.
 
Moo Of Doom said:
Let [itex]x \in (g \circ f)^{-1}(A)[/itex]. Then [itex]x \in S[/itex] with [itex]g(f(x)) \in A[/itex]. This means [itex]f(x) \in g^{-1}(A)[/itex] and thus [itex]x \in f^{-1}(g^{-1}(A))[/itex].

The other direction has been shown.

How are those not all double arrows, evagelos? If [itex]g(f(x)) \in A[/itex], then certainly [itex]f(x) \in g^{-1}(A)[/itex] by definition. We already know that [itex]f(x) \in T[/itex].

I'm curious as to what this supposed counter-example is.

Your proof looks correct. There appears to be a mistake in my counter example. I'll spend a few futile minutes anyway trying to think up a counterexample anyway.
 
Moo Of Doom said:
If [itex]g(f(x)) \in A[/itex], then certainly [itex]f(x) \in g^{-1}(A)[/itex] by definition. We already know that [itex]f(x) \in T[/itex].

.

What definition,write down please
 
evagelos said:
What definition,write down please
g-1(A) is defined as the set of all x such that g(x) is in A. If g(f(x)) is in A, then, by that definition, f(x) is in g-1(A).
 
write a proof where you justify each of your steps ,if you wish.

The above proof is not very clear
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K