Prove inverse of strictly monotone increasing function is continuous over the range of original function












0












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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
















0












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    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














0












0








0





$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    0












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 10 '18 at 23:36









        Paul FrostPaul Frost

        10.3k3933




        10.3k3933






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

            Mont Emei