Expressing multi-variable functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of multi-variable functions, specifically whether a function expressed as f = f(h(a,b), c, d) can be rewritten as f = g(a, b, u(c,d)). The consensus is that while the transformation is theoretically possible under certain conditions, it is not universally applicable without specific definitions for the functions involved. The concept of cardinality and bijections is crucial, as it establishes the foundation for transforming functions between different dimensions. The Implicit Function Theorem also plays a significant role in determining the relationships between the variables.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multi-variable functions and their representations
  • Familiarity with the Implicit Function Theorem
  • Knowledge of cardinality and bijections in set theory
  • Basic calculus concepts related to function transformations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Implicit Function Theorem in detail
  • Explore the concept of cardinality and bijections in set theory
  • Investigate multi-variable calculus and function transformations
  • Learn about projections and their applications in function representation
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of calculus, and anyone interested in advanced function theory and transformations in multi-variable contexts.

Physics_wiz
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
I have a simple question, let's say I have a function f = f(h(a,b), c, d). Can I express this as f = g(a, b, u(c,d))? Are the two expressions equivalent or is one different/more general than the other?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question was not detailed enough that there could be clear answer, because you did not specify what kind of function u is supposed to be. Also... it seems that the h is misdirection there.

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

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

<br /> 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}.<br />

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

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

You can make the question more difficult by assuming more about f and demanding g and u to satisfy some conditions.
 
jostpuur said:
The following claim should be true, perhaps it answers something:

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

<br /> 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}.<br />

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

I don't think I agree with that.

Let f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=x_1x_3+x_4. Now, what function g(x_1,x_2,u(x_3,x_4)) is equal to f(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)
 
Physics_wiz said:
I don't think I agree with that.

Do you know what cardinality and bijection mean?

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

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

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

where u:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R} is some bijection, and p_1,p_2:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R} the projections, does the job.
 
I read a little about cardinality...I think I understand. Can anyone direct me to where I can look to answer my original question? (i.e. what topics names I can look up in calculus or analysis)
 
Physics_wiz said:
I have a simple question, let's say I have a function f = f(h(a,b), c, d). Can I express this as f = g(a, b, u(c,d))? Are the two expressions equivalent or is one different/more general than the other?

In general, f(h(a,b), c, d) can be written as k(a,b,c, d) but cannot be written as g(a,b,u(c,d)) since the last assumes that c and d appear throughout f only in a specific form: u(c,d). k(a,b,c,d) is "more general" than either f(h(a,b),c,d) or g(a,b,u(c,d)) but it is impossible to say whether one of those two is "more general" than the other without specific h or u.
 
Ok, here's where the original question came from...maybe this helps.

Say I have a function F(a,b,c) = G(d,e). Assume the Implicit Function Theorem conditions are satisfied. So, I can solve for c as follows: c = H(G(d,e),a,b). Now, in this case, can I write c as c = N(d,e,M(a,b))? Why or why not?
 
HallsofIvy said:
In general, f(h(a,b), c, d) can be written as k(a,b,c, d) but cannot be written as g(a,b,u(c,d)) since the last assumes that c and d appear throughout f only in 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?
 
Physics_wiz said:
Ok, here's where the original question came from...maybe this helps.

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

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

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K