Multivariable calculus/analysis problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tim_lou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multivariable
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in multivariable calculus and analysis concerning the local injectivity of a function \( f \) that is continuously differentiable from \( \mathbb{R}^n \) to \( \mathbb{R}^n \). Participants explore the implications of the function's derivative being invertible except at isolated points, particularly at the origin, and consider various approaches to proving local injectivity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the contraction principle does not apply since the derivative \( df \) becomes small around the point of interest, leading to considerations of topology in \( \mathbb{R}^n \).
  • Another participant points out that the inverse function theorem indicates \( f \) is locally bijective everywhere except possibly at the origin, raising the question of proving injectivity at that point.
  • There is a proposal to analyze special cases, such as \( \mathbb{R}^2 \), to gain insights into the problem.
  • A participant questions the validity of a specific function \( f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 \) as a counterexample, prompting a reminder about the function's domain being \( \mathbb{R}^n \) to \( \mathbb{R}^n \).
  • One participant shares a potential approach using the Jordan curve theorem to show that there exists a neighborhood around the origin where \( f \) is injective, although they express uncertainty about the correctness of their reasoning.
  • The reasoning involves constructing paths and analyzing loops formed under the mapping of \( f \), leading to a contradiction regarding path connectivity and self-intersecting loops.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of certain theorems and the validity of specific examples. There is no consensus on a definitive solution or approach to the problem, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their reasoning, including assumptions about the behavior of the derivative and the specific conditions under which the inverse function theorem applies. The discussion also highlights the complexity of proving injectivity in higher dimensions.

tim_lou
Messages
682
Reaction score
1
Hi guys... Haven't been in the forum for a couple years now.
I have an old analysis problem that I never manage to solve. Would be nice if someone can shed some light on this.let [tex]f[/tex] be a [tex]C^1[/tex] function from [tex]\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n[/tex], [tex]n>1[/tex]. [tex]df[/tex] is invertible except at isolated points (WLOG assume only at 0), prove that [tex]f[/tex] is locally injective, i.e. there is a neighborhood around each point in the domain such that [tex]f[/tex] is injective.

thoughts about this problem: contraction principle doesn't work at all, since df gets really small around 0. The theorem is false when n=1 (like y=x^2), this makes me think the problem should involve some (if not mostly) topology of R^n

I asked my topology professor but he said he can't think of a solution right away, he told me to consider the eigenvectors of the derivative... would be nice if anyone can put this problem to "sleep" once and for all.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, the inverse function theorem implies that f is locally bijective everywhere except perhaps at 0. You must prove that f is injective at 0 also?
 
yes, precisely what the problem is about... i think it may be best to look at special cases like [tex]\mathbb{R}^2[/tex] first.
 
Is it true for f(x,y)=x²+y² (the 2-dimensinal version of y=x²)??
 
i think you forgot that f has to be a function from [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex] to [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex] :wink:
 
In case anyone is still interested in this problem...in the 2D case, i can show (i think) that there exists a neighborhood U of 0, such that f is injective on U-{0} using Jordon curve theorem. However, I cannot proceed any further.

I don't know if my reasoning is 100% correct. Generally, I first pick a [tex]U[/tex] around 0, small enough such that [tex]|df|[/tex] is bounded by some upper bound. [tex]f(U)[/tex] is bounded, by uniform continuity. I suppose [tex]x,y\neq 0[/tex] and [tex]f(x)=f(y)[/tex], take a path from [tex]x[/tex] to [tex]y[/tex], call it [tex]g:I\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2[/tex], with non-vanishing derivative. it's image under [tex]f[/tex] will be a loop, call it [tex]h[/tex]. if the loop is self-intersecting, we can cut out the self-intersecting part (the pre-image will become line segments, but that is fine). This cutting process must end because we can cover the image of [tex]g[/tex] by finitely many balls under which [tex]f[/tex] is a homeomorphism by inverse function theorem and compactness, so that the length of each sub-loop (the self-intersecting part) must have a non-zero lower bound. the resulting loop is piecewise [tex]C^1[/tex] and has non-vanishing derivative (when it exists) since [tex]dh=df\cdot dg[/tex]. Then [tex]f(U-\{\textrm{finitely many line segments}\})=f(U)-\{\textrm{the modified loop}\}[/tex] has at least two components by Jordan curve theorem, yet [tex]U-\{\textrm{finitely many line segments}\}[/tex] is path connected, a contradiction.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K