MHB Finding inverse of F in Munkres' Topology Ch.2 EX 5 pg 106

Click For Summary
In Munkres' "Topology," the function F is defined as F(x) = x/(1 - x^2), and the discussion focuses on finding its inverse. The equation y = F(x) leads to a quadratic equation, yx^2 + x - y = 0, which can be solved for x. The correct solution for x, ensuring it falls within the interval (-1, 1), is x = (-1 + √(1 + 4y^2))/(2y). This solution, while appearing different from Munkres' G(y), can be shown to be equivalent through rationalization. The conversation emphasizes the satisfaction gained from understanding the inverse, despite it not being strictly necessary to prove F is a homeomorphism.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Munkres book "Topology" (Second Edition), Munkres proves that a function F is a homeomorphism ...

I need help in determining how to find the inverse of $$F$$ ... so that I feel I have a full understanding of all aspects of the example ...

Example 5 reads as follows:View attachment 4193Wishing to understand all aspects of the problem I tried to see how given

$$ F(x) = \frac{x}{1 - x^2} $$

one could determine the inverse of $$F$$ (and then come up with $$G$$, as Munkres did ... ... somehow ??) ... ...I think I proceed by putting

$$y = \frac{x}{1 - x^2}$$

and solving for $$x$$ ... ... BUT how exactly do I proceed (I got nowhere with this problem!)Can someone please help?NOTE... I realize that being able to determine the inverse of F and show it is G is not strictly necessary in showing that F is a homeomorphism ... BUT ... I feel very dissatisfied that I cannot see exactly how this works ... so, again, I hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I tried to see how given

$$ F(x) = \frac{x}{1 - x^2} $$

one could determine the inverse of $$F$$ (and then come up with $$G$$, as Munkres did ... ... somehow ??) ... ...I think I proceed by putting

$$y = \frac{x}{1 - x^2}$$

and solving for $$x$$
If $$y = \frac{x}{1 - x^2}$$ then $yx^2 + x - y = 0$. Solving that quadratic equation for $x$, you get $x = \dfrac{-1 \pm\sqrt{1+4y^2}}{2y}$. You want the solution for which $x\in (-1,1)$, which means that you need the $+$ sign for the square root: $x = \dfrac{-1 + \sqrt{1+4y^2}}{2y}$. That looks different from the formula that Munkres gives for $G(y)$, but if you rationalise the denominator of his formula (multiplying top and bottom of his fraction by $-1 + \sqrt{1+4y^2}$) then you see that the two solutions are equivalent.
 
Opalg said:
If $$y = \frac{x}{1 - x^2}$$ then $yx^2 + x - y = 0$. Solving that quadratic equation for $x$, you get $x = \dfrac{-1 \pm\sqrt{1+4y^2}}{2y}$. You want the solution for which $x\in (-1,1)$, which means that you need the $+$ sign for the square root: $x = \dfrac{-1 + \sqrt{1+4y^2}}{2y}$. That looks different from the formula that Munkres gives for $G(y)$, but if you rationalise the denominator of his formula (multiplying top and bottom of his fraction by $-1 + \sqrt{1+4y^2}$) then you see that the two solutions are equivalent.
Thanks Opalg ... quite straightforward really... Another case of "easy when you know how" ...

Thanks again for your support and help with this problem ...

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K