1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Inverse proof

  1. Feb 21, 2009 #1

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Prove that if f:X -> Y is a discontinuous bijection then f-1:Y -> X is also discontinuous.

    2. Relevant equations

    N/A

    3. The attempt at a solution

    The contrapositive of this statement is that if f-1:Y -> X is continuous then f:X -> Y is continuous. Since f is bijective its invertable; hence, all I need to prove is, if f:X -> Y is continuous then f-1:Y -> X is continuous.

    If f is continuous there exits a value delta for every epsilon such that delta = g*epsilon, where g is a function of epsilon.

    We use the epislon delta method to prove f-1 is continuous. Hence, for all epsilon greater than zero there exists a delta greater than zero such that 0 < abs(y - k) < delta and 0 < abs(f-1(y) - f-1(k)) < epsilon. Hence, we may rewrite this as 0 < abs(f(x) - f(c)) < delta and 0 < abs(x - c) < epsilon. Since, this is merely the situation for f with epsilon and delta switched it follows that delta = epsilon/g. Therefore f-1:Y -> X is continuous. Q.E.D.

    I think some of my reasoning isn't particularly great, so any suggestions on how to correct this proof are welcome. Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 21, 2009 #2
    You can't prove an implication by proving its converse. While that statement is also true, it does not show that "if f-1:Y -> X is continuous then f:X -> Y is continuous". If you're trying to prove the contrapositive statement the straightforward constructive way, you have to start by assuming that f-1 is continuous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  4. Feb 21, 2009 #3

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sorry. I figured that since if a function is completely invertable then it's inverse is completely invertable as well, and since any function f that has a complete inverse g can also be called g-1, it followed that if f is a continuous bijection then f-1 is also continuous or equivalently stated if g-1 is a continuous bijection, then g is also continuous. I should have caught that and proved it probably. It should be simple to fix that part though.

    If f-1 is continuous then for every epsilon (e) there exists a delta (d) given by d = g*e where g is a function of e.

    We use the epsilon delta method to prove f is continuous. For all e > 0 there exists a d > 0 such that 0 < abs(x - c) < d and 0 < abs(f(x) - f(c)) < e. Which is equivalent to 0 < abs(f-1(y) - f-1(k)) < d and 0 < abs(y - k) < e. Since this is merely the situation for f-1 with e and d switched it follows that d = e/g. Q.E.D.

    I'm certain there still has to be something wrong with that though.
     
  5. Feb 21, 2009 #4
    Without certain conditions on X the statement to prove is false, anyway. A common counterexample is with X = [0,1) U (1,2], f(x)=x on [0,1] and f(x)=x+1 on (1,2].
    EDIT: X should be [0,2].
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  6. Feb 21, 2009 #5

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wouldn't f be discontinuous then? f has to be continuous.

    I'll go along with your other criticisms though. I'll try to explain my reasoning more clearly. First, what I mean by d = g*e: Suppose d = 2e +1, this can be expressed in the form d = g*e where g = 2 + 1/e, I'm simply trying to generalize something. Given 0 < abs(x - c) < e and 0 < abs(f(x) - f(c)) < d. If we go about the same process used to find e we would get e = g*d where g is a function of delta. Now I suppose my "proof" only works if you can explicitly express that in terms of d which is what I presume you were pointing out.
     
  7. Feb 21, 2009 #6

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As an aside, since my proof is invalid, would anyone mind trying to point me in the right direction?
     
  8. Feb 21, 2009 #7

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nevermind, no need. I found a proof of it that I understand in my calculus book. Thanks for the repsonses!
     
  9. Feb 21, 2009 #8
    We can only go by what you wrote:
    Correcting the example I gave (I originally had it switched around, sorry): make that X=[0,2], then f is a discontinuous bijection with a continuous inverse.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Inverse proof
  1. Inverse proof (Replies: 8)

Loading...