Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

enter image description here

I have only taken an excerpt from the book from Spivak 3rd edition page 220 in his "Inverse Function" chapter.

At the end of the 3rd paragraph, he says that

Then $f$ takes on some value $f(x) > y$ (because $\alpha$ is the least upper bound)

What does the sup have to do with anything? And why $f(x) > y$? Why not $f(x) < y$? I am guessing (forgive my stupidity here) his purpose in the third paragraph is to tell us that the domain of $f^{-1}$ must also take the form $(a,b)$ or $(a, \infty)$ (assuming $f$ is increasing)

EDIT Let's say $f$ has the domain $(a, b)$ and codomain $(f(c), \infty)$. Then does that mean $f^{-1}$ has a domain $(f(c), \infty)$ and codomain $(a,b)$?

share|improve this question
    
If $y < \alpha$, then $y$ is not an upper bound since $\alpha$ is the least upper bound. What does it mean for $y$ to not be an upper bound of $A$? Does that answer your question? –  Vectk Jun 22 '13 at 3:09

2 Answers 2

Because $y < \alpha$ and $\alpha$ is the least upper bound of $A$, this means that $y$ is not an upper bound of $A$. So some value in $A$ must properly be bigger (but $\le \alpha$ of course). So (by the definition of $A$) there is some $c \le x < b$ with $f(x) > y$.

share|improve this answer

The author is trying to establish that $y$ is a value that $f$ takes for some argument. Directly finding such an argument is not possible, so the Intermediate Value Theorem will be called upon to provide one. As one already has the value $f(c)<y$, what is needed for this is a value $f(x)>y$; this question of utility is why one is not searching for an argument $x$ with $f(x)<y$ (although they certainly exist). Next, to be able to find an argument $x$ with $f(x)>y$ at all, it is important that such $x$ exists, in other words that $y$ is not an upper bound for the values of $f$. This is why $y$ was taken to be strictly less than the least upper bound$~\alpha$; without this hypothesis the argument could not work. But now this hypothesis gives the existence of $x$ with $f(x)>y$; having$f(c)<y<f(x)$, it suffices to apply the IVT and to conclude that $y$ is a value of $f$.

This show values $y$ with $f(c)<y<\alpha$ occur as values of $f$; since $\alpha$ is an upper bound for the values of $f$, it is also clear that values $z$ with $\alpha<z$ do not occur as values of $f$. This leaves only the question whether $\alpha$ itself occurs as value of$~f$, and the las sentence of the paragraph shows it does not.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.