The inverse image of an open set is open

In summary, the function f is continuous and has a neighborhood of width 2\epsilon which contains the point x_0.
  • #1
jfy4
649
3

Homework Statement


Consider a continuous function [itex]f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}[/itex] and an arbitrary open [itex]U\subset\mathbb{R}[/itex]. Show that the inverse image under [itex]f[/itex] of [itex]U[/itex], [itex]f^{-1}[/itex], is open.

Homework Equations


The definitions of open sets and continuity

The Attempt at a Solution


Pick an arbitrary point in the set [itex]f^{-1}[/itex], [itex]x_0\in f^{-1}[/itex]. Then [itex]f(x_0)\in U[/itex] which implies that [itex]f(x_0)[/itex] is an interior point. Then there exists a [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] such that [itex]V_{\epsilon}(f(x_0))[/itex] exists. Then since the function is continuous, there exists a [itex]\delta>0[/itex] such that for all [itex]x\in(x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\implies f(x)\in V_{\epsilon}(f(x_0))[/itex]. Then [itex](x_0-\delta,x_0+\delta)\subseteq U[/itex] which means there exists a [itex]V_{\delta}(x_0)\subseteq f^{-1}[/itex]. Then [itex]x_0[/itex] is an interior point, but [itex]x_0[/itex] was arbitrary so every point in [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is an interior point. Hence, [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is open. [itex]\blacksquare[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What does the notation [itex]V_{\epsilon}(f(x_0))[/itex] mean? An open interval of width [tex]\epsilon[/tex] that contains [tex] f(x_0) [/tex] and is a subset of [tex] U [/tex]?
 
  • #3
Stephen Tashi said:
What does the notation [itex]V_{\epsilon}(f(x_0))[/itex] mean? An open interval of width [tex]\epsilon[/tex] that contains [tex] f(x_0) [/tex] and is a subset of [tex] U [/tex]?

It means a neighborhood around [itex]f(x_0)[/itex] of width [itex]2\epsilon[/itex]. The interval [itex](f(x_0)-\epsilon,f(x_0)+\epsilon)[/itex]
 
  • #4
It should say [itex]V_{\delta}(x_0)\subseteq f^{-1}[/itex] for starters, not a subset of U :redface:

EDIT: I fixed it.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
You need to say that [tex] V_\epsilon(f(x_0)) [/tex] can be chosen to be a subset of [tex] U [/tex]. You aren't making it clear why the continuity of [tex] f(x) [/tex] makes it possible to find [tex] V_\delta(x_0) [/tex]. Does your text define continuity as a property involving a limit? If so, you need to explain why the definition allows you to find [tex] V_\delta [/tex].
 
  • #6
Stephen Tashi said:
You need to say that [tex] V_\epsilon(f(x_0)) [/tex] can be chosen to be a subset of [tex] U [/tex]. You aren't making it clear why the continuity of [tex] f(x) [/tex] makes it possible to find [tex] V_\delta(x_0) [/tex]. Does your text define continuity as a property involving a limit? If so, you need to explain why the definition allows you to find [tex] V_\delta [/tex].

Okay. [itex]V_\epsilon[/itex] is a subset since by definition an interior point has a neighborhood around it that is completely contained in the mother set.

I am given that the function is continuous. Then

[tex](\forall\epsilon>0)(\exists\delta>0)(\forall x)(|x-x_0|<\delta \implies |f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon )[/tex].

I invoke the definition since I have found a neighborhood around [itex]f(x_0)[/itex] so I'm guaranteed a [itex]\delta[/itex]-neighborhood where all its members map into [itex]U[/itex]. Then the result follows.

If I were to include something like this in the proof would that be acceptable?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
jfy4 said:
Okay. [itex]V_\epsilon[/itex] is a subset
You mean that it may be chosen to be a subset of [tex] U [/tex].

"since by definition an interior point has a neighborhood around it that is completely contained in the mother set.

Yes, that's relevant after you have explained why [tex] f(x0) [/tex] is an interior point of [tex] U [/tex].

I am given that the function is continuous. Then

[tex](\forall\epsilon>0)(\exists\delta>0)(\forall x)(|x-x_0|<\delta \implies |f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon [/tex].

OK, if that's how your text defines continuity. But the more common definitions are:

[tex] f(x) [/tex] is continuous at the point [tex] x_0[/tex] means [tex] lim_{x\rightarrow x_0} f(x) = f(x_0) [/tex]
and
[tex] f(x) [/tex] is continuous on the set [tex] S [/tex] means that for each point [tex] x_0 \in S [/tex], [tex] f(x) [/tex] is continuous at [tex] x_0 [/tex].

In those definitions there is nothing said about epsilons or deltas. The epsilons and deltas come from applying the definition of limit to the definition of continuity.

(An amusing fact:
In courses on topology, the definition "f is continuous" is that for the mapping f, the inverse image of each open set is open. This is because in General Topology, no measurement of distance is used to define "open" set, so there are no epsilons and deltas available to define limits or continuity.)
 

FAQ: The inverse image of an open set is open

What is the definition of an inverse image of an open set?

The inverse image of an open set is a set of all the elements in the domain that map to elements in the open set through a given function. It is denoted as f^{-1}(U), where U is an open set and f is a function.

Why is it important to know if the inverse image of an open set is open?

Knowing if the inverse image of an open set is open is important in many mathematical proofs and applications. It helps determine if a function is continuous or not, and it is also used in topology to study the continuity of functions.

Can the inverse image of an open set be closed?

No, the inverse image of an open set cannot be closed. This is because if a set is open, then its complement is closed. So, if the inverse image of an open set is closed, then its complement would be open, which contradicts the definition of an inverse image.

Are there any exceptions to the rule that the inverse image of an open set is open?

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, if the function is not one-to-one, then the inverse image of an open set may not always be open. This is because in such cases, the inverse image of an open set may contain elements that do not map to the open set.

How is the concept of inverse image of an open set related to the concept of inverse function?

The concept of the inverse image of an open set is closely related to the concept of inverse function. In fact, the inverse image of an open set is the preimage of the open set under the inverse function. This means that if we have a function f and its inverse function f^{-1}, then the inverse image of an open set U under f^{-1} is the preimage of U under f.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
745
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top