Proving an unknown function with some properties is bijective Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Show the inverse of a bijective function is bijectiveprove that there exists a bijective functionProving $mathbbR^2 rightarrow mathbbR^2$ function is bijective.Proving that a function is oddExistence of Continuous bijective functionProving an unspecified function is invertibleProving the piecewise function is bijectiveProving Hyperbolic Sine and Tan functions are bijective.Let function $f$ be defined by $f(X)$. Prove that $f$ is bijective.Show that the function $f(x)=x/(x^2-1)$ is bijective.
Would "destroying" Wurmcoil Engine prevent its tokens from being created?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
How to down pick a chord with skipped strings?
What is this building called? (It was built in 2002)
Trademark violation for app?
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
Do jazz musicians improvise on the parent scale in addition to the chord-scales?
How could we fake a moon landing now?
Is it cost-effective to upgrade an old-ish Giant Escape R3 commuter bike with entry-level branded parts (wheels, drivetrain)?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
Is there such thing as an Availability Group failover trigger?
Do I really need recursive chmod to restrict access to a folder?
Find the length x such that the two distances in the triangle are the same
How come Sam didn't become Lord of Horn Hill?
What does "lightly crushed" mean for cardamon pods?
Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?
If my PI received research grants from a company to be able to pay my postdoc salary, did I have a potential conflict interest too?
Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
What is homebrew?
Is it a good idea to use CNN to classify 1D signal?
How would a mousetrap for use in space work?
Generate an RGB colour grid
Extracting terms with certain heads in a function
Proving an unknown function with some properties is bijective
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Show the inverse of a bijective function is bijectiveprove that there exists a bijective functionProving $mathbbR^2 rightarrow mathbbR^2$ function is bijective.Proving that a function is oddExistence of Continuous bijective functionProving an unspecified function is invertibleProving the piecewise function is bijectiveProving Hyperbolic Sine and Tan functions are bijective.Let function $f$ be defined by $f(X)$. Prove that $f$ is bijective.Show that the function $f(x)=x/(x^2-1)$ is bijective.
$begingroup$
Let $f : mathbbR rightarrow mathbbR$ be a continuously
differentiable function with the property that $exists c > 0$ such
that $f'(x) > c$ for all $xinmathbbR$.
I want to show $f$ is bijective
Injectivity follows easily because $f$ is strictly increasing. How can I show $f$ is onto? Usually I just compute the inverse function, but this isn't possible here.
functions
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Let $f : mathbbR rightarrow mathbbR$ be a continuously
differentiable function with the property that $exists c > 0$ such
that $f'(x) > c$ for all $xinmathbbR$.
I want to show $f$ is bijective
Injectivity follows easily because $f$ is strictly increasing. How can I show $f$ is onto? Usually I just compute the inverse function, but this isn't possible here.
functions
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Let $f : mathbbR rightarrow mathbbR$ be a continuously
differentiable function with the property that $exists c > 0$ such
that $f'(x) > c$ for all $xinmathbbR$.
I want to show $f$ is bijective
Injectivity follows easily because $f$ is strictly increasing. How can I show $f$ is onto? Usually I just compute the inverse function, but this isn't possible here.
functions
$endgroup$
Let $f : mathbbR rightarrow mathbbR$ be a continuously
differentiable function with the property that $exists c > 0$ such
that $f'(x) > c$ for all $xinmathbbR$.
I want to show $f$ is bijective
Injectivity follows easily because $f$ is strictly increasing. How can I show $f$ is onto? Usually I just compute the inverse function, but this isn't possible here.
functions
functions
asked Apr 1 at 13:25
wutv1922wutv1922
202
202
1
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Notice that $f(x)=int_0^xf'(t)dt implies lim_xtopminfty|f(x)|>lim_xtopminfty|x|c=infty$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim one: for any $x in mathbbR$, $f(x + 1) > f(x) + c$.
Proof: suppose that $f(x + 1) leq f(x) + c$. By the mean value theorem, there is a point $y in [x, x+1]$ with
$$
f'(y) = fracf(x + 1) - f(x)(x+1) - 1 = f(x+1) - f(x) leq c,
$$
a contradiction.
Claim two: $f(x)$ is surjective.
Proof: Say we want to show that $b$ is in the range of $f(x)$. We'll break into cases, although the argument in both cases is really the same. First, if $b = f(0)$, we're obviously done.
If $b > f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(N) > f(0) + Nc$ by iteratively applying claim one, and we can pick $N$ large enough to make the right hand side greater than $b$. Then applying the intermediate value theorem we see that $b$ is in the range of $f$.
If $b < f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(-N) < f(0) - Nc$ by applying claim one iteratively again. Now pick $N$ large enough to make the left hand side less than $b$, and apply the intermediate value theorem.
In the two non-trivial cases, we are using that $c neq 0$.
Claim three: $f(x)$ is injective. As you say, this is immediate, since $f$ is increasing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f3170608%2fproving-an-unknown-function-with-some-properties-is-bijective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Notice that $f(x)=int_0^xf'(t)dt implies lim_xtopminfty|f(x)|>lim_xtopminfty|x|c=infty$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notice that $f(x)=int_0^xf'(t)dt implies lim_xtopminfty|f(x)|>lim_xtopminfty|x|c=infty$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notice that $f(x)=int_0^xf'(t)dt implies lim_xtopminfty|f(x)|>lim_xtopminfty|x|c=infty$.
$endgroup$
Notice that $f(x)=int_0^xf'(t)dt implies lim_xtopminfty|f(x)|>lim_xtopminfty|x|c=infty$.
answered Apr 1 at 13:37
Μάρκος ΚαραμέρηςΜάρκος Καραμέρης
68213
68213
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim one: for any $x in mathbbR$, $f(x + 1) > f(x) + c$.
Proof: suppose that $f(x + 1) leq f(x) + c$. By the mean value theorem, there is a point $y in [x, x+1]$ with
$$
f'(y) = fracf(x + 1) - f(x)(x+1) - 1 = f(x+1) - f(x) leq c,
$$
a contradiction.
Claim two: $f(x)$ is surjective.
Proof: Say we want to show that $b$ is in the range of $f(x)$. We'll break into cases, although the argument in both cases is really the same. First, if $b = f(0)$, we're obviously done.
If $b > f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(N) > f(0) + Nc$ by iteratively applying claim one, and we can pick $N$ large enough to make the right hand side greater than $b$. Then applying the intermediate value theorem we see that $b$ is in the range of $f$.
If $b < f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(-N) < f(0) - Nc$ by applying claim one iteratively again. Now pick $N$ large enough to make the left hand side less than $b$, and apply the intermediate value theorem.
In the two non-trivial cases, we are using that $c neq 0$.
Claim three: $f(x)$ is injective. As you say, this is immediate, since $f$ is increasing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim one: for any $x in mathbbR$, $f(x + 1) > f(x) + c$.
Proof: suppose that $f(x + 1) leq f(x) + c$. By the mean value theorem, there is a point $y in [x, x+1]$ with
$$
f'(y) = fracf(x + 1) - f(x)(x+1) - 1 = f(x+1) - f(x) leq c,
$$
a contradiction.
Claim two: $f(x)$ is surjective.
Proof: Say we want to show that $b$ is in the range of $f(x)$. We'll break into cases, although the argument in both cases is really the same. First, if $b = f(0)$, we're obviously done.
If $b > f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(N) > f(0) + Nc$ by iteratively applying claim one, and we can pick $N$ large enough to make the right hand side greater than $b$. Then applying the intermediate value theorem we see that $b$ is in the range of $f$.
If $b < f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(-N) < f(0) - Nc$ by applying claim one iteratively again. Now pick $N$ large enough to make the left hand side less than $b$, and apply the intermediate value theorem.
In the two non-trivial cases, we are using that $c neq 0$.
Claim three: $f(x)$ is injective. As you say, this is immediate, since $f$ is increasing.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Claim one: for any $x in mathbbR$, $f(x + 1) > f(x) + c$.
Proof: suppose that $f(x + 1) leq f(x) + c$. By the mean value theorem, there is a point $y in [x, x+1]$ with
$$
f'(y) = fracf(x + 1) - f(x)(x+1) - 1 = f(x+1) - f(x) leq c,
$$
a contradiction.
Claim two: $f(x)$ is surjective.
Proof: Say we want to show that $b$ is in the range of $f(x)$. We'll break into cases, although the argument in both cases is really the same. First, if $b = f(0)$, we're obviously done.
If $b > f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(N) > f(0) + Nc$ by iteratively applying claim one, and we can pick $N$ large enough to make the right hand side greater than $b$. Then applying the intermediate value theorem we see that $b$ is in the range of $f$.
If $b < f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(-N) < f(0) - Nc$ by applying claim one iteratively again. Now pick $N$ large enough to make the left hand side less than $b$, and apply the intermediate value theorem.
In the two non-trivial cases, we are using that $c neq 0$.
Claim three: $f(x)$ is injective. As you say, this is immediate, since $f$ is increasing.
$endgroup$
Claim one: for any $x in mathbbR$, $f(x + 1) > f(x) + c$.
Proof: suppose that $f(x + 1) leq f(x) + c$. By the mean value theorem, there is a point $y in [x, x+1]$ with
$$
f'(y) = fracf(x + 1) - f(x)(x+1) - 1 = f(x+1) - f(x) leq c,
$$
a contradiction.
Claim two: $f(x)$ is surjective.
Proof: Say we want to show that $b$ is in the range of $f(x)$. We'll break into cases, although the argument in both cases is really the same. First, if $b = f(0)$, we're obviously done.
If $b > f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(N) > f(0) + Nc$ by iteratively applying claim one, and we can pick $N$ large enough to make the right hand side greater than $b$. Then applying the intermediate value theorem we see that $b$ is in the range of $f$.
If $b < f(0)$, then for any positive integer $N$, we have $f(-N) < f(0) - Nc$ by applying claim one iteratively again. Now pick $N$ large enough to make the left hand side less than $b$, and apply the intermediate value theorem.
In the two non-trivial cases, we are using that $c neq 0$.
Claim three: $f(x)$ is injective. As you say, this is immediate, since $f$ is increasing.
answered Apr 2 at 1:17
hunterhunter
15.9k32643
15.9k32643
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%2f3170608%2fproving-an-unknown-function-with-some-properties-is-bijective%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
1
$begingroup$
Well, you need to prove that there is no upper or lower bound on the values of $f(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
Apr 1 at 13:30
$begingroup$
Suppose the lower bound was $f(x)$. Then by the fact that $f$ is strictly increasing, we can take $f(x - a) < f(x)$ for $a > 0$. Does that work?
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:31
$begingroup$
You have a stronger hypothesis than strictly increasing, and you will have to use it. For example, $exp(x)$ is strictly increasing but not bijective (but it also does not satisfy the stronger hypothesis.)
$endgroup$
– hunter
Apr 1 at 13:34
$begingroup$
How can you assume that lower bound is attained by $f$?
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Apr 1 at 13:35
$begingroup$
@hunter I'm guessing I need to use the fact that it's continuously differentiable. I still can't get anything.
$endgroup$
– wutv1922
Apr 1 at 13:48