Inverse of Function: Topology by Munkres Ch 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter trixitium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse
trixitium
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm reading the first chapter of Topology by Munkres. There we can see:

"if f is bijective, there exists a function from B to A called the inverse of f.

(...)

As another situation where care is needed, we note that it is not in general true that

f^{-1}(f(A_0) = A_0 and f(f^{-1}(B_0)) = B_0. The relevant rules, which we leave you to check, are the following: If f: A \rightarrow B and A_0 \subset A and B_0 \subset B, then

A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0)) and f(f^{-1}(B_0) \subset B_0

The first inclusion is equality if f is injective and the second inclusion is equality if f is surjective."

Are there any sense in talking about inverse considering that f is not injective or surjective?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Ah, this is a common misunderstanding, due to a notation issue. If f : A \rightarrow B is any function and B_0 \subset B, then by f^{-1}(B_0) people always mean the set \{ x \in A | f(x) \in B_0 \}. Notice that this has meaning even if f is not a bijection. Likewise, if A_0 \subset A, we have f(A) = \{ f(x) | x \in A \}. I think that with these definitions you should be able to understand the conclusions made in your book.
 
Oh, dear, oh, dear! Just seeing this question makes me want to hide under the bed!

The very first time I had to give an explanation of a proof to a class in a topology class, it involved f^{-1}(A) for A a set and I did the whole thing assuming f was invertible!

If f is a function from set X to set Y, and A is a subset of X, B a subset of Y, then we define f(A) to be the set of all y in Y such that f(x)= y for some x in A and f^{-1}(B) to be the set of all x in X such that f(x) is in B.

IF f is "one to one and onto", that is, if f is invertibe, then we can show that f^{-1}(f(A))= A, but f does not have to be invertible, or even defined on set B for f^{-1}(B) to be defined.

For example, let f:R=>R be defined by f(x)= x2 and let B= [-4, 4]. Then f^{-1}(B)= [-2, 2]. f(2)= f(-2)= 4 so both 2 and -2 are in f^{-1}(B) and for any x between -2 and 2, -4< 0< f(x)< 4, so x is also in f^{-1}(B). If x< -2 or x> 2, f(x)> 4 so not in [-4, 4].

Even f^{-1}([-4, -1]) is defined. Because there is NO x such that f(x)= x^2 is in [-4, -1] so f^{-1}([-4, -1]) is the empty set.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
545
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top