I Is the solution to this problem as trivial as I think?

PhysicsRock
Messages
121
Reaction score
19
The problem goes as follows: Let ##M, N## be sets and ##f : M \rightarrow N##. Further let ##L \subseteq M## and ##P \subseteq N##. Then show that ##L \subseteq f^{-1}(f(L))## and ##f^{-1}(f(P)) \subseteq P##.
Obviously, I would simply use the definition of a functions inverse to obtain ##f^{-1}(f(L)) = L \subseteq L## and vice versa for ##P##. This seems quite trivial to me though, so am I doing this correctly or is there a mistake in my thoughts?

Thank you everyone and have a great day.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PhysicsRock said:
The problem goes as follows: Let ##M, N## be sets and ##f : M \rightarrow N##. Further let ##L \subseteq M## and ##P \subseteq N##. Then show that ##L \subseteq f^{-1}(f(L))## and ##f^{-1}(f(P)) \subseteq P##.
Obviously, I would simply use the definition of a functions inverse to obtain ##f^{-1}(f(L)) = L \subseteq L## and vice versa for ##P##. This seems quite trivial to me though, so am I doing this correctly or }1is there a mistake in my thoughts?

Thank you everyone and have a great day.
You have a typo in the ##P## statement.

##f^{-1}## is not the inverse function. It is a set, namely ##f^{-1}(L)=\{m\in M\,|\,f(m)\in L\}.##

It isn't difficult to prove these statements, but it's not about inverse functions, just preimages.
 
fresh_42 said:
You have a typo in the ##P## statement.

##f^{-1}## is not the inverse function. It is a set, namely ##f^{-1}(L)=\{m\in M\,|\,f(m)\in L\}.##

It isn't difficult to prove these statements, but it's not about inverse functions, just preimages.
That clears things up, thank you :)
 
As an example if you're still confused, ##f:\mathbb{,R} \to \mathbb{R}## defined by ##f(x)=x^2##. Try computing ##f^{-1}(f(L))## for ##L=[0,1]##
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
954
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
887
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
810