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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving two statements regarding sets and functions: that for sets L and P, L is a subset of the preimage of its image under a function f, and the preimage of the image of P is a subset of P. Participants clarify that the notation f^{-1} refers to the preimage of a set, not an inverse function, which is a common misunderstanding. They emphasize that proving these statements is straightforward and involves understanding the concept of preimages. An example is provided to illustrate the concept further. The conversation concludes with a helpful link to additional properties related to functions and sets.
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
915
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
538