Basic proof about inverse images of sets

In summary, the conversation discusses a proof about inverse images of sets. The statement being discussed is that if y is in a subset B, then the inverse image of y is also in the inverse image of B. The conversation goes through the definition of inverse images and clarifies that it is a subset and not a member of the set. The problem is eventually solved with the correct understanding of "is a subset of" and the statement is proven to be true.
  • #1
jacobrhcp
169
0
[SOLVED] basic proof about inverse images of sets

Homework Statement



let f map X onto Y, and let A be a subset of X, B subset of Y

1) Prove that if y is in B, then f^(-1) (y) is in f^(-1) (B)

The Attempt at a Solution



1) I think I'm missing some two-line proof, because I'm getting nowhere and this is supposed to be simple. I just don't know where to start, so just a hint would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The statement, as given, is not true. Since f is only given as a "map", it may not have an inverse function and so f-1(y) may not exist. Your question, however, is about "inverse images", which exist whether or not f has an inverse. What is true is that f-1({y}) is a subset of f-1(B). {y} is, of course, the set containing the single point y. That statement follows directly from the definition of "inverse image". What is the definition of f-1(B)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
f^-1 (B) := {x in X| f(x) in B}

The book told us that strictly speaking one should write f({y}), but in order to keep simplicity, they just use the notation f(y). What I'm trying to prove is what you have written down. I am sorry I didn't bring that part over correct.but, back to the problem. this would make

f^-1 (y) = {x in X| f(x) in {y}}
f^-1 (B) = {x in X| f(x) in B}

because y is in B, this implies that f^-1 (y) is in f^-1 (B), is that right?

Anyway, thanks for your help... I'm not even sure if this is 'calc&beyond'... I'm studying physics and took mathematics as a major too since the start of this year, and this class is given at the same time as the first calculus and linear algebra classes.
 
  • #4
jacobrhcp said:
f^-1 (B) := {x in X| f(x) in B}

The book told us that strictly speaking one should write f({y}), but in order to keep simplicity, they just use the notation f(y). What I'm trying to prove is what you have written down. I am sorry I didn't bring that part over correct.
Hmmph! Well, go by your textbook- but the part about "is a subset of" rather than "is in" is important.


but, back to the problem. this would make

f^-1 (y) = {x in X| f(x) in {y}}
f^-1 (B) = {x in X| f(x) in B}

because y is in B, this implies that f^-1 (y) is in f^-1 (B), is that right?
Again, "is a subset of" not "is in" which means "is a member of". [itex]f^{-1}(y)= f^{-1}(\{y\})[/itex] is a subset of X, not a member of X! If [itex]x\in f^{-1}(\{y\})[/itex], then, by definition, [itex]f(x)\in \{y\}[/itex] which is a subset of B. Therefore, if [itex]x\in f^{-1}({y})[/itex], [itex]f(x)\in B[/itex].
 
  • #5
haha, I love the fact you could respond so quickly.

The textbook used 'is a subset of' instead of 'is in' on many places (I think in all the places it is necessary), I just went over it too fast so I didn't copy it right because I hasn't realized it made such a difference. I get what you're explaining now, though.

Thanks, and SOLVED!
 

Related to Basic proof about inverse images of sets

1. What is the definition of inverse images of sets?

The inverse image of a set A under a function f is the set of all elements in the domain of f that map to elements in A. This can also be thought of as the preimage of A under f.

2. How do you prove that two sets have equal inverse images under a function?

To prove that two sets have equal inverse images under a function f, you must show that every element in the inverse image of one set is also in the inverse image of the other set, and vice versa. This can be done by using the definition of inverse images and set membership.

3. Can inverse images of sets be empty?

Yes, it is possible for the inverse image of a set to be empty. This means that there are no elements in the domain of the function that map to any elements in the set. This can occur if the function is not surjective, meaning there are elements in the range that are not mapped to by any element in the domain.

4. How are inverse images of sets related to the concept of set inverses?

The inverse image of a set A under a function f is closely related to the inverse of A. While the inverse of A is a set of elements that, when applied to a function, will map back to elements in A, the inverse image of A is a set of elements that are already in the domain of the function and map to elements in A.

5. Are there any properties or rules for working with inverse images of sets?

Yes, there are a few properties and rules that can be used when working with inverse images of sets. These include the fact that the inverse image of the empty set is always the empty set, and that the inverse image of the union of two sets is the union of the inverse images of each set. Additionally, the inverse image of the intersection of two sets is contained within the intersection of the inverse images of each set.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
573
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
404
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
739
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
504
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
583
Back
Top