- #1

- 224

- 0

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 Physics_wiz
- Start date

- #1

- 224

- 0

- #2

- 2,111

- 18

The following claim should be true, perhaps it answers something:

For arbitrary function [tex]f:\mathbb{R}^4\to\mathbb{R}[/tex], there exists functions [tex]g:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex], so that

[tex]

f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = g(x_1,x_2,u(x_3,x_4)),\quad\forall\; x_1,\ldots,x_4\in\mathbb{R}.

[/tex]

The reason for this is that [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{R}^2[/tex] have the same cardinality, so that there exists a bijection [tex]u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex]. The g can then be defined with

[tex]

g(x_1,x_2,y) = f(x_1,x_2,u^{-1}(y)).

[/tex]

You can make the question more difficult by assuming more about f and demanding g and u to satisfy some conditions.

- #3

- 224

- 0

The following claim should be true, perhaps it answers something:

For arbitrary function [tex]f:\mathbb{R}^4\to\mathbb{R}[/tex], there exists functions [tex]g:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex], so that

[tex]

f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) = g(x_1,x_2,u(x_3,x_4)),\quad\forall\; x_1,\ldots,x_4\in\mathbb{R}.

[/tex]

The reason for this is that [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbb{R}^2[/tex] have the same cardinality, so that there exists a bijection [tex]u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex].

I don't think I agree with that.

Let [tex] f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=x_1x_3+x_4[/tex]. Now, what function [tex]g(x_1,x_2,u(x_3,x_4))[/tex] is equal to [tex]f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)[/tex]

- #4

- 2,111

- 18

I don't think I agree with that.

Do you know what cardinality and bijection mean?

Let [tex] f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=x_1x_3+x_4[/tex]. Now, what function [tex]g(x_1,x_2,u(x_3,x_4))[/tex] is equal to [tex]f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)[/tex]

I don't know a nice formula that you could write into a calculator, but a function g defined by

[tex]

g(x_1,x_2,y) = x_1 (p_1\circ u^{-1})(y) + (p_2\circ u^{-1})(y),

[/tex]

where [tex]u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex] is some bijection, and [tex]p_1,p_2:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}[/tex] the projections, does the job.

- #5

- 224

- 0

- #6

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 963

In general, f(h(a,b), c, d)

- #7

- 224

- 0

Say I have a function [tex]F(a,b,c) = G(d,e)[/tex]. Assume the Implicit Function Theorem conditions are satisfied. So, I can solve for c as follows: [tex]c = H(G(d,e),a,b)[/tex]. Now, in this case, can I write c as [tex]c = N(d,e,M(a,b))[/tex]? Why or why not?

- #8

- 2,111

- 18

In general, f(h(a,b), c, d)canbe written as k(a,b,c, d) butcannotbe written as g(a,b,u(c,d)) since the last assumes that c and d appear throughout fonlyin a specific form: u(c,d).

Do you mean that this cannot be done when u has already been fixed, or something else has been assumed of the u, or is there a contradiction with my post?

- #9

- 224

- 0

Say I have a function [tex]F(a,b,c) = G(d,e)[/tex]. Assume the Implicit Function Theorem conditions are satisfied. So, I can solve for c as follows: [tex]c = H(G(d,e),a,b)[/tex]. Now, in this case, can I write c as [tex]c = N(d,e,M(a,b))[/tex]? Why or why not?

Anyone? Do the functions N and M exist so I can write [tex]c = N(d,e,M(a,b))[/tex]? By the way, N and M can be anything...I just wanted to know if they exist.

Share: