Mapping and inverse mapping of open sets and their complements

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alyafey22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Mapping Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of mappings and their inverses in set theory, specifically regarding the function $$f: E \to Y$$ where $$E \subset X$$. It is established that for the equation $$f(E^c) = f(E)^c$$ to hold, the function must be bijective. Additionally, it is concluded that if $$f$$ is not defined for elements outside of $$E$$, then $$f(E^c)$$ is empty, while $$f(E)^c$$ is the complement of the image of $$E$$ in $$Y$$. The inverse mapping $$f^{-1}: V \to X$$ requires $$f$$ to be injective to ensure each element in the domain has a unique image.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and functions
  • Knowledge of bijective and injective functions
  • Familiarity with the concepts of complements in set theory
  • Basic grasp of mappings and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bijective functions in detail
  • Learn about injective and surjective mappings
  • Explore the implications of set complements in function mappings
  • Investigate the relationship between functions and their inverses in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced mathematics, and anyone studying the properties of functions and set theory will benefit from this discussion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
937
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
988
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
964
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K