Is it possible to affirm that if $B\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ $$f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow B $$ and $$g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow B$$ are invertible functions and $$f(x) \leq g(x), \forall x \in \mathbb{R} \tag 1$$ then $$g^{-1}(x) \leq f^{-1}(x) , \forall x \in B\tag 2$$ If so, how can it be proved? If it's false, is there a counterexample? In this problem, suppose $f(\mathbb{R}) = g(\mathbb{R})$.

If $f$ and $g$ are continous then this is equivalent to both are either strictly increasing or both are strictly decreasing, and the inequalities $(2)$ will hold.

Intuitively, the proposition seems true to me. I couldn't conceive a counterexample.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you please show some of your own working/thoughts on how to answer this. People are here to help you understand where you are going wrong, but not to just do questions for you. $\endgroup$ – EHH Jun 20 '17 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Are $f^{-1}$ and $g^{-1}$ always defined on the same set ? $\endgroup$ – Evargalo Jun 20 '17 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ I unsuccessfully tried to draw a proof. Intuitively, it seems true to me. But I'm not 100% sure. So, I've tried to write the problem without say if it's true. I didn't find anything similar to this problem on Google. $\endgroup$ – cquina Jun 20 '17 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Evargalo Yes, f^{−1} and g^{−1} are defined on the same set $\endgroup$ – cquina Jun 20 '17 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ What if you take $f(x) = \tanh x$ and $g(x) = 4 + \tanh x$? $\endgroup$ – MPW Jun 20 '17 at 14:58

As a hint: it is true if $f$ is increasing (in the sense that $x \le y$ iff $f(x) \le f(y)$) and $f(\mathbf{R}) \subseteq g(\mathbf{R})$. For example $f(x) = x$ and $g(x) = e^x$ then $\log x \le x \le e^x$ whenever either inequality makes sense. This isn't hard to prove.

You can use the hypotheses here to construct a counter example to what you've stated.

Something else to think about: saying that $f(x) \le g(x)$ means that $(x, f(x)$ sits below $(x, g(x)$. When you take inverses you reflect in the line $y = x$, this means that $(f(x),x)$ sits to the left of $(g(x),x)$. Why isn't this the same thing as saying that $g^{-1}(x) \le f^{-1}(x)$?

Edit (June 25, 2017):

Since this is true when $f$ is increasing, we take a decreasing $f$ for a counterexample. Let $f(x) = - x$ and let $g(x) = f(x) + 1$. Then $f(x) < g(x)$ for all $x$ but $f^{-1}(x) = f(x) < g(x) = g^{-1}(x)$ so the inequality does not reverse if $f$ is decreasing.

Claim: If $f$ is increasing then the inequality reverses.

Proof: Since $f$ is increasing, $f^{-1}$ is increasing. If $f(x) \le g(x)$ then since $f^{-1}$ is increasing,

$$ f^{-1}(f(x)) \le f^{-1}(g(x)). $$

Since $f^{-1}(f(x)) = x = g^{-1}(g(x))$ we have

$$ g^{-1}(g(x)) \le f^{-1}(g(x)) $$

or $$g^{-1}(y) \le f^{-1}(y) $$ where $y = g(x)$. Since every $y$ is of this form, the inequality holds for all $y$. $\square$

Claim: If $f$ is decreasing then the inequality does not reverse.

Proof: The same except now $f^{-1}$ is decreasing so the inequality reverses at this step:

$$ f^{-1}(f(x)) \ge f^{-1}(g(x)). $$

So we have

$$ g^{-1}(y) = f^{-1}(f(x)) \ge f^{-1}(y) $$

where $y = g(x)$. $\square$

  • $\begingroup$ did you already construct a counter example? $\endgroup$ – miracle173 Jun 24 '17 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ @miracle173 I've added details/proofs. If there is anything still unclear let me know. $\endgroup$ – Trevor Gunn Jun 25 '17 at 19:28

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.