Prove inverse of strictly monotone increasing function is continuous over the range of original function
$begingroup$
Let $f:[a,b] rightarrow Bbb R$ be a strictly monotone increasing. Then $f$ has an inverse function $g:[c,d]rightarrow Bbb R,$ where $[c,d]$ is the range of $f$. I'm trying to prove that $g$ is continuous at d.
My intial thoughts for an attempt of a proof:
Strictly monotone functions are injective. So if $alpha, beta in [a,b]$ and $alpha not= beta $ then $alpha < beta$. Since $f$ is strictly monotone increasing $f(alpha) < f(beta)$ and $f(alpha) not= f(beta)$.
Since $f$ is strictly increasing, so is $f^{-1}$. So if $alpha < beta$ then $f^{-1}(f(alpha)) < f^{-1}(f(beta))$.
This is because if there exists $alpha$ and $beta $ $in (a,b)$ with $alpha < beta$ such that $f^{-1}(alpha)$ = $alpha '$ and $f^{-1}(beta)$ = $beta '$ and $alpha ' < beta '$ then
$beta = f^{-1}(beta ') le f^{-1}(alpha ') = alpha$
which is a contradiction if $f$ is strictly increasing.
The remainder of the proof is some form of an epsilon delta proof to show that the inverse function is continuous from the left at the right end point. My attempt:
Let $b$ be the upper limit $ in [a,b]$ and define $d = f(b)$.
Next, I want to show that $lim_{xrightarrow d^{-}}f^{-1}(x) = b$ for any $epsilon >0$ such that $(b-epsilon) subset [a,b]$.
So, $f(b-epsilon) < f(b)$.
Let $delta = 1/2 (f(b)-f(b-epsilon))$
Then $f(x_0-epsilon) < f(x_0)-delta$
So if $|x-d| < delta$, then $|f^{-1}(x)-f^{-1}(d)|<epsilon$
then continuity holds at $f^{-1}(d)$, which is possible by the Archimedean principle. Currently, I'm having trouble with the epsilon-delta proof. I don't think the argument is strong enough.
real-analysis continuity proof-writing epsilon-delta monotone-functions
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:[a,b] rightarrow Bbb R$ be a strictly monotone increasing. Then $f$ has an inverse function $g:[c,d]rightarrow Bbb R,$ where $[c,d]$ is the range of $f$. I'm trying to prove that $g$ is continuous at d.
My intial thoughts for an attempt of a proof:
Strictly monotone functions are injective. So if $alpha, beta in [a,b]$ and $alpha not= beta $ then $alpha < beta$. Since $f$ is strictly monotone increasing $f(alpha) < f(beta)$ and $f(alpha) not= f(beta)$.
Since $f$ is strictly increasing, so is $f^{-1}$. So if $alpha < beta$ then $f^{-1}(f(alpha)) < f^{-1}(f(beta))$.
This is because if there exists $alpha$ and $beta $ $in (a,b)$ with $alpha < beta$ such that $f^{-1}(alpha)$ = $alpha '$ and $f^{-1}(beta)$ = $beta '$ and $alpha ' < beta '$ then
$beta = f^{-1}(beta ') le f^{-1}(alpha ') = alpha$
which is a contradiction if $f$ is strictly increasing.
The remainder of the proof is some form of an epsilon delta proof to show that the inverse function is continuous from the left at the right end point. My attempt:
Let $b$ be the upper limit $ in [a,b]$ and define $d = f(b)$.
Next, I want to show that $lim_{xrightarrow d^{-}}f^{-1}(x) = b$ for any $epsilon >0$ such that $(b-epsilon) subset [a,b]$.
So, $f(b-epsilon) < f(b)$.
Let $delta = 1/2 (f(b)-f(b-epsilon))$
Then $f(x_0-epsilon) < f(x_0)-delta$
So if $|x-d| < delta$, then $|f^{-1}(x)-f^{-1}(d)|<epsilon$
then continuity holds at $f^{-1}(d)$, which is possible by the Archimedean principle. Currently, I'm having trouble with the epsilon-delta proof. I don't think the argument is strong enough.
real-analysis continuity proof-writing epsilon-delta monotone-functions
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:[a,b] rightarrow Bbb R$ be a strictly monotone increasing. Then $f$ has an inverse function $g:[c,d]rightarrow Bbb R,$ where $[c,d]$ is the range of $f$. I'm trying to prove that $g$ is continuous at d.
My intial thoughts for an attempt of a proof:
Strictly monotone functions are injective. So if $alpha, beta in [a,b]$ and $alpha not= beta $ then $alpha < beta$. Since $f$ is strictly monotone increasing $f(alpha) < f(beta)$ and $f(alpha) not= f(beta)$.
Since $f$ is strictly increasing, so is $f^{-1}$. So if $alpha < beta$ then $f^{-1}(f(alpha)) < f^{-1}(f(beta))$.
This is because if there exists $alpha$ and $beta $ $in (a,b)$ with $alpha < beta$ such that $f^{-1}(alpha)$ = $alpha '$ and $f^{-1}(beta)$ = $beta '$ and $alpha ' < beta '$ then
$beta = f^{-1}(beta ') le f^{-1}(alpha ') = alpha$
which is a contradiction if $f$ is strictly increasing.
The remainder of the proof is some form of an epsilon delta proof to show that the inverse function is continuous from the left at the right end point. My attempt:
Let $b$ be the upper limit $ in [a,b]$ and define $d = f(b)$.
Next, I want to show that $lim_{xrightarrow d^{-}}f^{-1}(x) = b$ for any $epsilon >0$ such that $(b-epsilon) subset [a,b]$.
So, $f(b-epsilon) < f(b)$.
Let $delta = 1/2 (f(b)-f(b-epsilon))$
Then $f(x_0-epsilon) < f(x_0)-delta$
So if $|x-d| < delta$, then $|f^{-1}(x)-f^{-1}(d)|<epsilon$
then continuity holds at $f^{-1}(d)$, which is possible by the Archimedean principle. Currently, I'm having trouble with the epsilon-delta proof. I don't think the argument is strong enough.
real-analysis continuity proof-writing epsilon-delta monotone-functions
$endgroup$
Let $f:[a,b] rightarrow Bbb R$ be a strictly monotone increasing. Then $f$ has an inverse function $g:[c,d]rightarrow Bbb R,$ where $[c,d]$ is the range of $f$. I'm trying to prove that $g$ is continuous at d.
My intial thoughts for an attempt of a proof:
Strictly monotone functions are injective. So if $alpha, beta in [a,b]$ and $alpha not= beta $ then $alpha < beta$. Since $f$ is strictly monotone increasing $f(alpha) < f(beta)$ and $f(alpha) not= f(beta)$.
Since $f$ is strictly increasing, so is $f^{-1}$. So if $alpha < beta$ then $f^{-1}(f(alpha)) < f^{-1}(f(beta))$.
This is because if there exists $alpha$ and $beta $ $in (a,b)$ with $alpha < beta$ such that $f^{-1}(alpha)$ = $alpha '$ and $f^{-1}(beta)$ = $beta '$ and $alpha ' < beta '$ then
$beta = f^{-1}(beta ') le f^{-1}(alpha ') = alpha$
which is a contradiction if $f$ is strictly increasing.
The remainder of the proof is some form of an epsilon delta proof to show that the inverse function is continuous from the left at the right end point. My attempt:
Let $b$ be the upper limit $ in [a,b]$ and define $d = f(b)$.
Next, I want to show that $lim_{xrightarrow d^{-}}f^{-1}(x) = b$ for any $epsilon >0$ such that $(b-epsilon) subset [a,b]$.
So, $f(b-epsilon) < f(b)$.
Let $delta = 1/2 (f(b)-f(b-epsilon))$
Then $f(x_0-epsilon) < f(x_0)-delta$
So if $|x-d| < delta$, then $|f^{-1}(x)-f^{-1}(d)|<epsilon$
then continuity holds at $f^{-1}(d)$, which is possible by the Archimedean principle. Currently, I'm having trouble with the epsilon-delta proof. I don't think the argument is strong enough.
real-analysis continuity proof-writing epsilon-delta monotone-functions
real-analysis continuity proof-writing epsilon-delta monotone-functions
asked Dec 10 '18 at 21:42
user624612
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $R = f([a,b])$ be the range of $f$. Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we have $R subset [f(a),f(b)]$, but in general $R ne [f(a),f(b)]$. For example, let $f : [0,2] to mathbb{R}, f(x) = x$ for $x in [0,1)$, $f(1) = 2$, $f(x) = x + 2$ for $x in (1,2]$.
But although $R$ is general no interval, the usual definition of continuity makes sense for $f^{-1} : R to [a,b]$. Moreover, as you remarked in your question, $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing, i.e. for $y,y'in R$ with $y < y'$ we have $f^{-1}(y) < f^{-1}(y')$.
Let us assume that $f^{-1}$ is not continuous. This means that exist $y in R$ and $epsilon > 0$ such that for all $delta > 0$ there exists $y_delta in R$ such that $lvert y - y_delta rvert < delta$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_delta) rvert ge epsilon$. We can therefore find a sequence $(y_n)$ in $R setminus { y }$ such that $y_n to y$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$. W.lo.g. we may assume that infinitely many $y_n < y$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, we may assume that all $y_n < y$ and that $(y_n)$ is strictly increasing. Write $x_n = f^{-1}(y_n)$, $x = f^{-1}(y)$. The sequence $(x_n)$ is strictly increasing such that $x_n < x$. It therefore converges to some $xi le x$. We have $y_n = f(x_n) < f(xi) le f(x) = y$, and this implies $f(xi) = y$ because $y_n to y$. Hence $xi = f^{-1}(y) = x$. We conclude $x_n to x$. But $lvert x - x_n rvert = lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$ which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034525%2fprove-inverse-of-strictly-monotone-increasing-function-is-continuous-over-the-ra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let $R = f([a,b])$ be the range of $f$. Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we have $R subset [f(a),f(b)]$, but in general $R ne [f(a),f(b)]$. For example, let $f : [0,2] to mathbb{R}, f(x) = x$ for $x in [0,1)$, $f(1) = 2$, $f(x) = x + 2$ for $x in (1,2]$.
But although $R$ is general no interval, the usual definition of continuity makes sense for $f^{-1} : R to [a,b]$. Moreover, as you remarked in your question, $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing, i.e. for $y,y'in R$ with $y < y'$ we have $f^{-1}(y) < f^{-1}(y')$.
Let us assume that $f^{-1}$ is not continuous. This means that exist $y in R$ and $epsilon > 0$ such that for all $delta > 0$ there exists $y_delta in R$ such that $lvert y - y_delta rvert < delta$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_delta) rvert ge epsilon$. We can therefore find a sequence $(y_n)$ in $R setminus { y }$ such that $y_n to y$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$. W.lo.g. we may assume that infinitely many $y_n < y$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, we may assume that all $y_n < y$ and that $(y_n)$ is strictly increasing. Write $x_n = f^{-1}(y_n)$, $x = f^{-1}(y)$. The sequence $(x_n)$ is strictly increasing such that $x_n < x$. It therefore converges to some $xi le x$. We have $y_n = f(x_n) < f(xi) le f(x) = y$, and this implies $f(xi) = y$ because $y_n to y$. Hence $xi = f^{-1}(y) = x$. We conclude $x_n to x$. But $lvert x - x_n rvert = lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$ which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R = f([a,b])$ be the range of $f$. Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we have $R subset [f(a),f(b)]$, but in general $R ne [f(a),f(b)]$. For example, let $f : [0,2] to mathbb{R}, f(x) = x$ for $x in [0,1)$, $f(1) = 2$, $f(x) = x + 2$ for $x in (1,2]$.
But although $R$ is general no interval, the usual definition of continuity makes sense for $f^{-1} : R to [a,b]$. Moreover, as you remarked in your question, $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing, i.e. for $y,y'in R$ with $y < y'$ we have $f^{-1}(y) < f^{-1}(y')$.
Let us assume that $f^{-1}$ is not continuous. This means that exist $y in R$ and $epsilon > 0$ such that for all $delta > 0$ there exists $y_delta in R$ such that $lvert y - y_delta rvert < delta$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_delta) rvert ge epsilon$. We can therefore find a sequence $(y_n)$ in $R setminus { y }$ such that $y_n to y$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$. W.lo.g. we may assume that infinitely many $y_n < y$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, we may assume that all $y_n < y$ and that $(y_n)$ is strictly increasing. Write $x_n = f^{-1}(y_n)$, $x = f^{-1}(y)$. The sequence $(x_n)$ is strictly increasing such that $x_n < x$. It therefore converges to some $xi le x$. We have $y_n = f(x_n) < f(xi) le f(x) = y$, and this implies $f(xi) = y$ because $y_n to y$. Hence $xi = f^{-1}(y) = x$. We conclude $x_n to x$. But $lvert x - x_n rvert = lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$ which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $R = f([a,b])$ be the range of $f$. Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we have $R subset [f(a),f(b)]$, but in general $R ne [f(a),f(b)]$. For example, let $f : [0,2] to mathbb{R}, f(x) = x$ for $x in [0,1)$, $f(1) = 2$, $f(x) = x + 2$ for $x in (1,2]$.
But although $R$ is general no interval, the usual definition of continuity makes sense for $f^{-1} : R to [a,b]$. Moreover, as you remarked in your question, $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing, i.e. for $y,y'in R$ with $y < y'$ we have $f^{-1}(y) < f^{-1}(y')$.
Let us assume that $f^{-1}$ is not continuous. This means that exist $y in R$ and $epsilon > 0$ such that for all $delta > 0$ there exists $y_delta in R$ such that $lvert y - y_delta rvert < delta$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_delta) rvert ge epsilon$. We can therefore find a sequence $(y_n)$ in $R setminus { y }$ such that $y_n to y$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$. W.lo.g. we may assume that infinitely many $y_n < y$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, we may assume that all $y_n < y$ and that $(y_n)$ is strictly increasing. Write $x_n = f^{-1}(y_n)$, $x = f^{-1}(y)$. The sequence $(x_n)$ is strictly increasing such that $x_n < x$. It therefore converges to some $xi le x$. We have $y_n = f(x_n) < f(xi) le f(x) = y$, and this implies $f(xi) = y$ because $y_n to y$. Hence $xi = f^{-1}(y) = x$. We conclude $x_n to x$. But $lvert x - x_n rvert = lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$ which is a contradiction.
$endgroup$
Let $R = f([a,b])$ be the range of $f$. Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we have $R subset [f(a),f(b)]$, but in general $R ne [f(a),f(b)]$. For example, let $f : [0,2] to mathbb{R}, f(x) = x$ for $x in [0,1)$, $f(1) = 2$, $f(x) = x + 2$ for $x in (1,2]$.
But although $R$ is general no interval, the usual definition of continuity makes sense for $f^{-1} : R to [a,b]$. Moreover, as you remarked in your question, $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing, i.e. for $y,y'in R$ with $y < y'$ we have $f^{-1}(y) < f^{-1}(y')$.
Let us assume that $f^{-1}$ is not continuous. This means that exist $y in R$ and $epsilon > 0$ such that for all $delta > 0$ there exists $y_delta in R$ such that $lvert y - y_delta rvert < delta$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_delta) rvert ge epsilon$. We can therefore find a sequence $(y_n)$ in $R setminus { y }$ such that $y_n to y$ and $lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$. W.lo.g. we may assume that infinitely many $y_n < y$. Passing to a suitable subsequence, we may assume that all $y_n < y$ and that $(y_n)$ is strictly increasing. Write $x_n = f^{-1}(y_n)$, $x = f^{-1}(y)$. The sequence $(x_n)$ is strictly increasing such that $x_n < x$. It therefore converges to some $xi le x$. We have $y_n = f(x_n) < f(xi) le f(x) = y$, and this implies $f(xi) = y$ because $y_n to y$. Hence $xi = f^{-1}(y) = x$. We conclude $x_n to x$. But $lvert x - x_n rvert = lvert f^{-1}(y) - f^{-1}(y_n) rvert ge epsilon$ which is a contradiction.
answered Dec 10 '18 at 23:36
Paul FrostPaul Frost
10.4k3933
10.4k3933
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3034525%2fprove-inverse-of-strictly-monotone-increasing-function-is-continuous-over-the-ra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The range of $f$ is certainly contained in $[f(a),f(b)]$, but why should it be the complete interval?
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 22:35
$begingroup$
Hi @PaulFrost. I'm a little unclear of your question. I think that knowing that the inverse of f is strictly increasing over the whole interval is how we can get the result that the inverse function is continuous at the end point.
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 10 '18 at 23:08
$begingroup$
The claim is that $f^{-1}$ is continuous over the range of original function. It is therefore not sufficient to consider only the end point.
$endgroup$
– Paul Frost
Dec 10 '18 at 23:38
$begingroup$
I see what you mean. In a similar problem (not posted here), we determined that a defined monotone strictly increasing function was differentiable, thus implying continuity. Basically here we just needed to further that proof for the more general case for a closed interval. Thank you for your answers by the way! @PaulFrost
$endgroup$
– user624612
Dec 11 '18 at 15:56