Inverse of Function: Topology by Munkres Ch 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter trixitium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the concept of inverse functions as presented in Munkres' Topology, specifically addressing the conditions under which inverse functions can be defined. It clarifies that even if a function is not bijective, the notation for the inverse can still hold meaning, as it refers to the preimage of a subset. The participants highlight that while f^{-1}(f(A)) equals A only if f is injective, and f(f^{-1}(B)) equals B only if f is surjective, the definitions of f(A) and f^{-1}(B) remain valid regardless of these properties. An example using the function f(x) = x^2 illustrates that the inverse can be defined even when there are no corresponding elements in the original set. Understanding these nuances is crucial for grasping the broader implications of function inverses in topology.
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.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
655
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top