No Open Subset for Invertible Continuously Differentiable Mapping in R^n?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an example of a continuously differentiable mapping from R^n to R^n that does not have an open subset U such that F(U) is open in R^n. The original poster references a theorem regarding the stability of mappings and the implications of having an invertible derivative matrix.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster considers the implications of a non-invertible Jacobian and reflects on examples like X^2, questioning its applicability in higher dimensions. Other participants discuss the nature of closed sets and isolated points, suggesting a need to think about the mapping's properties.

Discussion Status

The conversation has seen participants exploring different properties of mappings and their implications on open and closed sets. The original poster has updated their approach, indicating a shift in understanding, but no consensus has been reached on a specific example yet.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the properties of continuously differentiable mappings and the conditions under which their images retain openness. The discussion hints at constraints regarding the dimensionality of examples and the characteristics of the mappings being considered.

cap.r
Messages
64
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Give an example of a continuously differentiable mapping F:R^n --> R^n with the property that tehre is no open subset U of R^n for which F(U) is open in R^n


Homework Equations


let U be an open subset of R^n and supposed that the continuously differentiable mapping F:U-->R^n is stable and has an invertible derivative matrix at each point. Then it's image F(u) is also open.


The Attempt at a Solution



So from the theorem I stated it seems like if F is not stable at any point then F(U) is not open. so I just need to give a function whose Jacobian is non-invertible. i can just think of X^2 which isn't one to one. but that's in R^2 and this is asking for an example in R^n...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
X^2 though not being 1:1, will still take an open set to an open set... and unless I'm understanding wrong, it is from R -> R

if I read you theorem correctly, the problem suggest F does not have an invertible derivative matrix & so is not 1:1

so have a think about closed sets, is an isolated point a closed set?
 
Last edited:
updated
 
ok so if I let the mapping F be degenerative and map everything to a k in R^n. then it will take the open set U to a closed set in R^n. so thanks for the help i got it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K