Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Uncertain about premise for proof.

  1. Jun 28, 2011 #1
    I am reading §22 of Topology by Munkres, in Theorem 22.2 the function g is said to be constant on each set p^(-1)({y}). However the only explicit property given in Corollary 22.3 to the function g is that it is continuous and surjective, but Theorem 22.2 to g in the proof. Is it implied that g in 22.3 also has the properties given in Theorem 22.2?

    .. Mads
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2011 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Hi madsmh! :smile:

    No, it isn't implicitly assumed that g or p has that property. However, it can be shown that p does have the correct properties of 22.2. Indeed, an arbitrary element of X* has the form [itex]g^{-1}(z)[/itex]. We must show that g is constant on sets of this form.
    This is true since by definition x is in [itex]g^{-1}(z)[/itex] if g(x)=z. So all elements in [itex]g^{-1}(z)[/itex] are being sent to z. So g is constant on sets of the form [itex]g^{-1}(z)[/itex]. So the premises of 22.2 are satisfied.
     
  4. Jun 29, 2011 #3
    Thanks! :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Uncertain about premise for proof.
  1. Isometries Proofs (Replies: 6)

  2. Geometrical Proofs (Replies: 3)

  3. Proof by Induction (Replies: 4)

Loading...