Is the Inverse Image of a Compact Set Always Bounded?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the question of whether the inverse image of a compact set under a continuous mapping is always bounded. The participants reference Theorem 4.8 from Rudin, which states that a mapping f from a metric space X to Y is continuous if the inverse image of every closed set C in Y is closed in X. It is established that while K is closed and compact, the boundedness of f^{-1}(K) is not guaranteed, particularly illustrated by the example of the function f:R->R where f(x)=sin(x).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of metric spaces and their properties
  • Familiarity with continuous mappings and their characteristics
  • Knowledge of compact sets and their implications in topology
  • Proficiency in applying Theorem 4.8 from Rudin's analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of compact sets in metric spaces
  • Explore the implications of continuous functions on boundedness
  • Investigate counterexamples to the boundedness of inverse images
  • Review additional theorems related to continuity and compactness in topology
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying topology and analysis, as well as educators looking for examples of continuous mappings and compact sets.

bertram
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let f be a continuous mapping from metric spaces X to Y. K \subset Yis compact. Is f^{-1}(K) bounded?

Homework Equations


Theorem 4.8 Corollary (Rudin) A mapping f of a metric space X into Y is continuous iff f^{-1}(C) is closed in X for every closed set C in Y.

The Attempt at a Solution


So my idea was to show that f^{-1}(K) was continuous, but i can't really figure that out immediately.
I just tried next to describe K and f^{-1}(K) as best I could... We know that K is closed and compact (compact subsets of metric spaces are closed). This will imply that f^{-1}(K) is closed (Thm 4.8 corollary). So I have that K is closed and compact and that f^{-1}(K) is closed. I just don't know how to make the ends meet. Maybe I'm doing this wrong, or just missing something obvious.

Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about why it might not be true before you start trying to prove it. Suppose f:R->R and f(x)=sin(x)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K