Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Theorem. Let $f\colon I \to J$, where $I$ is an interval and $J$ is the image $f(I)$, be a function such that:

  1. $f$ is strictly increasing on $I$.
  2. $f$ is continuous on $I$.

Then $J$ is an interval, and $f$ has an inverse function $f^{-1}\colon J\to I$ such that:

  1. $f^{-1}$ is strictly increasing on $J$.
  2. $f^{-1}$ is continuous on $J$.

I need to prove only that $f^{-1}$ is continuous on $J$.

Proof. Let $y\in J$, and (for simplicity) assume that $y$ is not an end-point of $J$. Then $y=f(x)$, for some $x\in I$, and we want to prove that $$y_n\to y\implies f^{-1}(y_n)\to f^{-1}(y)=x.$$ Thus we want to deduce that for each $\varepsilon>0$, there is some number $X$ such that $$x-\varepsilon<f^{-1}(y_n)<x+\varepsilon\qquad \forall n>X\qquad(1).$$ Since $f$ is strictly increasing, we know that $$f(x-\varepsilon)<f(x)<f(x+\varepsilon).$$ also, since $y_n\to y=f(x)$, there is some number $X$ such that $$f(x-\varepsilon)<y_n<f(x+\varepsilon), \qquad\forall n>X.$$ Then, applying the strictly increasing function $f^{-1}$ to these inequalities, we obtain (1).


I don't understand why, since $y_n\to y=f(x)$, there is some number $X$ such that $$f(x-\varepsilon)<y_n<f(x+\varepsilon), \qquad\forall n>X.$$ I would have written the last line as follows: $$f(x)-\varepsilon<y_n<f(x)+\varepsilon, \qquad\forall n>X.$$ Applying the $f^{-1}$ to my last line, which I think it's correct, I obtain $$f^{-1}[f(x)-\varepsilon]<f^{-1}[y_n]<f^{-1}[f(x)+\varepsilon], \qquad\forall n>X.$$ which is not (1).

What am I misunderstanding? Why the author of this proof wrote that last line and not my version?

Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
Thank you @Mauro, I added some lines to my question. I completely agree with your point in the the comment. I can't get the point I explained in my edit. – Charlie Feb 11 '14 at 11:15
You must use (check on your textbook) the result : Let $A$ be a non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$, and suppose $f : A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a monotone function such that the image $f(A)$ is an interval; then $f$ is a continuous function. Then you apply it to show that : if $I$ is an interval and $f : I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a strictly monotone function, then the inverse function $f^{-1} : f(I) \rightarrow I$ is continuous. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 11 '14 at 11:23
What makes things unclear to You may be just the notation: if you set $\alpha:=f(x-\varepsilon)$ and $\beta:=f(x+\varepsilon)$, then you have $\alpha< f(x)<\beta$. Since $y_n\to f(x)$, it follows that you can indeed find $X$ such that $\alpha <y_n <\beta$ for all $n>X$. – Etienne Feb 11 '14 at 11:28
About your "misunderstanding", I think that you cannot assume that the two "epsilons" (i.e.$f(x - \epsilon)$ and $f(x) - \epsilon$)are the same. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 11 '14 at 13:03
About my previous comment : "show that : if $I$ is an interval and $f : I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a strictly monotone function", the "trick" is to avoid "degenerate" cases like a function $f : [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$, such that $f(x)=x$, except for $x = 1/2$ where $f(x) = 10$. In this case, the isolated point, violating the condition of monotonicity, force the inverse function having a domain that is not an interval, and so it is not continuous. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 11 '14 at 14:02
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I've found DJH Garling, A Course in Mathematical Analysis (2013) the following corollary of the The intermediate value theorem [page 163] :

If $f$ is a strictly monotonic function on an interval $I$ then $f^{-1} : f(I) \rightarrow I$ is continuous.

Proof. Suppose without loss of generality that $f$ is strictly increasing.

Suppose that $b \in f(I)$ and that $\epsilon > 0$.

Suppose that $a = f^{-1}(b)$ is an interior point of $I$.

There exist $c, d \in I$ with $a − \epsilon < c < a < d < a + \epsilon$.

Then $f(c) < f(a) = b < f(d)$; let $δ = min(b − f(c), f(d) − b)$. If $|y − b| < δ$, then $f(c) < y < f(d)$, so that $c < f^{-1}(y) < d$, and $|f^{-1}(y) − f^{-1}(b)| < \epsilon$.

The case where a is an end-point of I is left to the reader.

Note that we do not require $f$ to be continuous.

Comment. The strict monotonicity of $f$ is needed because otherwise we can have a saw-tooth function that is continuous but, being not-monotone, its inverse is not defined, because the mapping $f^{-1}$ is not injective.

share|cite|improve this answer
Grazie Mauro, we have eluded the impasse. Nice Book! – Charlie Feb 11 '14 at 14:38

Your Answer


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.