MHB Show that the set is a partition of A

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partition Set
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the set {f^{-1}({x}) | x ∈ im f} is a partition of A. To establish this, it is necessary to demonstrate that the union of these sets equals A, that they are disjoint, and that the empty set is not included. It is confirmed that the disjointness holds since a function cannot have the same pre-image for different values. Additionally, it is affirmed that the union of all f^{-1}({x}) sets indeed covers the entire set A. The conclusion is that the criteria for a partition are satisfied.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

let $A\neq \emptyset\neq B$ be sets, $C\subseteq A$, $D\subseteq B$ subsets and $f:A\rightarrow B$ a map.

I want to show that the set $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ is a partition of $A$. To show that the set $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ is a partition of $A$, we have to show that the union of $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ is equal to $A$, the sets $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ are disjoint and the empty set is not an element of $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$, right? (Wondering) I have done the following:

Since $f$ is a function, this means that two values cannot gave the same pre-image. So it follows that the sets $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ are disjoint.

Is this correct? (Wondering)


The domain of a function is the set of its possible inputs, i.e., the set of input values where for which the function is defined. This means it is the set of all values $a\in A$ such that there is a $y$ with $f(a)=y$. That means that $f^{-1}(\{y\})$ contains $a$.

Does this mean that the union of all $\{f^{-1}(\{x\})\mid x\in \text{im} f\}$ is equal to $A$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey mathmari!

Yep. All correct. (Nod)
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K