MHB Mapping and inverse mapping of open sets and their complements

Click For Summary
For the function f mapping from E to Y, it cannot be concluded that f(E^c) equals f(E)^c, as f is not defined for elements outside E, potentially leading to an empty set. The inverse mapping f^{-1} requires f to be injective to ensure that each element in the domain has a unique image. Without injectivity, the inverse function is not well-defined, necessitating a bijection for proper conclusions. The discussion emphasizes the importance of bijective properties in both direct and inverse mappings of sets. Understanding these restrictions is crucial for accurate mathematical reasoning in set mappings.
alyafey22
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
2
Assume that $$ f: E \to Y \,\,\, , E \subset X$$ then can we say that $$f(E^c)=f(E)^c$$ what about the inverse mapping $$f^{-1}: V \to X \,\,\, , V\subset Y$$ do we have to have some restrictions on f and its inverse ? My immediate answer is that we have to have a bijection in order to conclude that but I am not sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ZaidAlyafey said:
Assume that $$ f: E \to Y \,\,\, , E \subset X$$ then can we say that $$f(E^c)=f(E)^c$$ what about the inverse mapping $$f^{-1}: V \to X \,\,\, , V\subset Y$$ do we have to have some restrictions on f and its inverse ? My immediate answer is that we have to have a bijection in order to conclude that but I am not sure.

If we have $$ f: E \to Y,\ E \subset X$$ then can we say that $$f(E^c)=\varnothing$$, since f is not defined for any element that is not in E, while $f(E)^c = Y \backslash f(E)$, which is not necessarily empty.

The inverse as you define it, is only defined if f is injective.
That is since each element in the domain of $f^{-1}$ must have exactly 1 image.
Or put otherwise, the mapping between E and V must be bijective.
 
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 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
801
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
840
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
815
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K