What's the Difference Between f at g(a) and f o g at a?

  • Thread starter Thread starter student34
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the differences between two expressions related to function compositions: "f at g(a)" and "f o g at a". Participants are exploring the implications of these notations in the context of continuity of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants attempt to define the expressions and relate them to specific functions, questioning whether they represent the same concept. There is a focus on continuity and the implications of a corollary regarding continuous functions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants presenting different interpretations and examples to clarify their understanding. Some guidance has been offered regarding the continuity of functions and the distinction between the two expressions, but no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific notes and a corollary regarding the continuity of functions, which some participants are questioning for clarity. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the definitions and domains of the functions involved.

student34
Messages
639
Reaction score
21

Homework Statement



I have to understand this to understand my homework. What is the difference between these two function compositions?

Homework Equations



f at g(a)

f o g at a

The Attempt at a Solution



Let's make f(a) = a^2 and g(a) = 3a.
It seems that "f at g(a)" means f(g(a)) which equals (3a)^2.
And it also seems like "f o g at a" means f(g(a)) which equals (3a)^2.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
student34 said:

Homework Statement



I have to understand this to understand my homework. What is the difference between these two function compositions?

Homework Equations



f at g(a)

f o g at a

The Attempt at a Solution



Let's make f(a) = a^2 and g(a) = 3a.
It seems that "f at g(a)" means f(g(a)) which equals (3a)^2.
And it also seems like "f o g at a" means f(g(a)) which equals (3a)^2.

They're both the same. It's just different notation for the same thing.
 
Mark44 said:
They're both the same. It's just different notation for the same thing.
Are you sure? Here is the reason why I asked this. In my notes, it says, "Corollary 3.1.7 (Composition of Continuous Functions): Suppose g is continuous at a and f is continuous at g(a). Then f ◦g is continuous at a".

Maybe this whole corollary somehow changes the meaning of the two function compositions?
 
student34 said:
Are you sure? Here is the reason why I asked this. In my notes, it says, "Corollary 3.1.7 (Composition of Continuous Functions): Suppose g is continuous at a and f is continuous at g(a). Then f ◦g is continuous at a".

Maybe this whole corollary somehow changes the meaning of the two function compositions?
f o g is a function in its own right. It's defined as: (f o g)(x) = f(g(x)).
 
student34 said:
Are you sure? Here is the reason why I asked this. In my notes, it says, "Corollary 3.1.7 (Composition of Continuous Functions): Suppose g is continuous at a and f is continuous at g(a). Then f ◦g is continuous at a".

Maybe this whole corollary somehow changes the meaning of the two function compositions?

No, it doesn't change anything. The domain of ##h = f\circ g## is the domain of ##g##, so it makes sense to think about continuity of ##h## at points ##a## in the domain of ##g## where ##g## is continuous. I'm not really sure what is bothering you about this.
 
LCKurtz said:
No, it doesn't change anything. The domain of ##h = f\circ g## is the domain of ##g##, so it makes sense to think about continuity of ##h## at points ##a## in the domain of ##g## where ##g## is continuous. I'm not really sure what is bothering you about this.

It bothers me because then the corollary is essentially saying that if g is continuous at x and f(g(x)) is continuous at x, then f(g(x)) is also continuous at x. There would be no reason to have the last part.
 
Let me give an example where g is not continuous to show what they mean. Suppose f(x) = x2 and g(x) = 1 for all x except g(0) = 4. Then f is continuous at 4 so f is continuous at g(0), but f(g(x)) is not continuous at 0 (because g is not continuous at 0).

Hopefully this clears things up
 
student34 said:
It bothers me because then the corollary is essentially saying that if g is continuous at x and f(g(x)) is continuous at x, then f(g(x)) is also continuous at x. There would be no reason to have the last part.

That's not what it's saying. It's saying that if g is continuous at a, and f is continuous at g(a), then f o g is continuous at a. That's different from what you wrote.
 
Office_Shredder said:
Let me give an example where g is not continuous to show what they mean. Suppose f(x) = x2 and g(x) = 1 for all x except g(0) = 4. Then f is continuous at 4 so f is continuous at g(0), but f(g(x)) is not continuous at 0 (because g is not continuous at 0).

Hopefully this clears things up

Would you agree that "f is continuous at g(a)" means the exact same thing as "f ◦g is continuous at a"? If so, then we can just change the former with the latter and then the corollary reads,
"Suppose g is continuous at a and f ◦g is continuous at a. Then f ◦g is continuous at a".

Normally I would question the notes, but my professor said that he made them over 20 years ago with another mathematician, and they have been using them ever since.
 
  • #10
No, I don't agree it's the same thing. f is continuous at g(a) is talking about the continuity of the function f, at a value in the domain of f, which happens to be g(a). f◦g being continuous at a is talking about the continuity of f◦g at a value in its domain. They're referring to the continuity of two different functions at points in two different domains, they do not mean the same thing. Read my post again I give an example of where f IS continuous at g(0), but f◦g is NOT continuous at 0, so those two concepts must be different.

The value of f at g(a) is the same as the value of f◦g at a, but the value of f NEAR g(a) is not the same thing as the value of f◦g near a, and continuity is talking about the latter, not the former.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #11
Mark44 said:
That's not what it's saying. It's saying that if g is continuous at a, and f is continuous at g(a), then f o g is continuous at a. That's different from what you wrote.
I know; I changed "f is continuous at g(x)" and "f ◦g is continuous at a" to "f(g(x))" since I am told that they are all equivalent, and then the corollary would exactly mean, "If g is continuous at x and f(g(x)) is continuous at x, then f(g(x)) is also continuous at x.
 
  • #12
Office_Shredder said:
The value of f at g(a) is the same as the value of f◦g at a, but the value of f NEAR g(a) is not the same thing as the value of f◦g near a, and continuity is talking about the latter, not the former.
Ohhhh, that's what was screwing me up. Now I see the point, thanks!
 
  • #13
Thank-you everyone :)
 
  • #14
student34 said:
I know; I changed "f is continuous at g(x)" and "f ◦g is continuous at a" to "f(g(x))" since I am told that they are all equivalent, and then the corollary would exactly mean, "If g is continuous at x and f(g(x)) is continuous at x, then f(g(x)) is also continuous at x.
No, they are not all equivalent, and your change has a different meaning from what you started with. The statement in your notes is exclusively about functions: namely, f, g, and f o g.

g(x) is not a function - it's the value of the function at a number x in the domain of f. Likewise, f(g(x)) is also not a function - it's the value of the function f o g at a number in its domain.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K