3
$\begingroup$

Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathrm{S}$, where $\mathrm{S}\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, be a strictly increasing (decreasing) function. I wish to find out whether its inverse $f^{-1}$ is also strictly increasing (decreasing) or not. While a proof for this exists online, I will provide a counterexample that seems to contradict the conclusions in the proof.

The proof can be found in: https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Inverse_of_Strictly_Monotone_Function

I will for simplicity only consider a strictly increasing function. From the provided link above we have that: \begin{align*} x < y & \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad f(x) < f(y) \\ f^{-1}(x) < f^{-1}(y) & \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad f^{-1}(f(x)) < f^{-1}(f(y)) \\ f^{-1}(x) < f^{-1}(y) & \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad x < y \\ \end{align*} Thus, if $f$ is a strictly increasing function, then so is $f^{-1}$.

Now for the counterexample. With some loss of generality, let $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}_{++}$ be a strictly positive function, where $\mathbb{R}_{++}=\{ x\in\mathbb{R}: x>0\}$. Furthermore, for an inverse it follows that $f^{-1}(x)f(x)=f(x)f^{-1}(x)=1$. Then from \begin{align*} x < y & \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad f(x) < f(y) \end{align*} we can rewrite the right-hand side as \begin{align*} f^{-1}(y)=\frac{1}{f(y)}<\frac{1}{f(x)}=f^{-1}(x) \end{align*} which implies that if $f$ is a strictly increasing function, then its inverse $f^{-1}$ is strictly decreasing.

Please provide comments if and why my counterexample is invalid. Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The reciprocal is different from the function inverse! A way to see the theorem heuristically is that the inverse is in some sense a reflection over the line $y=x$, and from there you can see the result with some doodling. $\endgroup$ – Andres Mejia Nov 2 '16 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I seem to have confused inverse with reciprocal. In the proof, how is one allowed to take $f^{−1}(\cdot)$ over $x<y$ on both sides without knowing if the "less than" sign should change direction? Doesn't this imply already that $f^{−1}$ is assumed to be strictly increasing? $\endgroup$ – index Nov 2 '16 at 14:36
5
$\begingroup$

We may argue as follows:

Let $f:X \mapsto Y$ be a monotone increasing function ( hence injective ), and let $ y_1, y_2 \in Y$, such that $y_1 < y_2$. Then, $\exists \ x_1, x_2 \in X \ $ s.t. $x_1=f^{-1}(y_1), x_2=f^{-1}(y_2)$. Thus, we have $f(x_1)=y_1, f(x_2)=y_2$.

Now, we claim that $f^{-1}(y_1) < f^{-1}(y_2)$. Otherwise, $f^{-1}(y_1) \geq f^{-1}(y_2) \Rightarrow x_1 \geq x_2 \Rightarrow f(x_1) \geq f(x_2) \Rightarrow y_1 \geq y_2 $, which is obviously a contradiction, so this concludes our proof.

$\endgroup$
0
2
$\begingroup$

It appears that you may be confusing the reciprocal function $\frac{1}{f(x)}$ with the inverse function (denoted $f^{-1}(x)$).

This latter notation, $f^{-1}$, is usually reserved for, and understood to be, the inverse function rather than the reciprocal function.


Edit:

In response to index's comment: I would prefer to structure the proof as:

We know $x<y \Leftrightarrow f(x)<f(y)$.

Hence $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y) \Leftrightarrow f(f^{-1}(x))<f(f^{-1}(y)) \Leftrightarrow x<y$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I seem to have confused inverse with reciprocal. In the proof, how is one allowed to take $f^{-1}(\cdot)$ over $x<y$ on both sides without knowing if the "less than" sign should change direction? Doesn't this imply already that $f^{-1}$ is assumed to be strictly increasing? $\endgroup$ – index Nov 2 '16 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please comment a bit more on your edited part and your thinking? I don't see how your restructure of the proof answers my comment? $\endgroup$ – index Nov 3 '16 at 10:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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