1
$\begingroup$

So, I'm currently looking through Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis, specifically Theorem 4.4, which says:

A mapping f of a metric space X into a metric space Y is continuous on X if and only if $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in X for every open set V in Y.

In the second part of the proof, where we suppose that $f^{-1}(V)$ is open in X for every open set V in Y (also fix $p\in X$ and $\epsilon >0$), he makes the statement that "$f^{-1}(V)$ is open; hence there exists $\delta >0$ such that $x\in f^{-1}(V)$ as soon as $d_X(p,x)<\delta$."

Doesn't this imply that $f^{-1}(V)$ is a neighborhood of p with radius $\delta$? Why can we say that, just because this set is open and is an inverse image, that it acts as a neighborhood? Can someone see what I'm missing here?

I looked through other pages, but the closest I could find were this and this, but the first deals with a different theorem from baby Rudin and the second is already assuming an interval in the answer.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What is your definition of open? $\endgroup$ Dec 13, 2017 at 3:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Notice that the open ball of radius $\delta$ isn’t necessarily equal to all of $f^{-1}(V)$ but rather it sits Inside it. So the author isn’t claiming that $f^{-1}(V)$ is a ball, but rather contains one. $\endgroup$ Dec 13, 2017 at 3:06

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Saying that $U\subset X$ is open is the same as saying that for any $x\in U$, there exists a $\delta>0$ such that the ball of radius $\delta$ centered at $x$, $N_x(\delta) = \{ y \mid d(x,y)<\delta\}$ (using Rudin's notation), is contained in $U$. This is Definition 2.18 in Rudin.

In the proof of Theorem 4.8, Rudin takes $V = N_{f(p)}(\epsilon)$, which is open. By hypothesis, $f^{-1}(V)$ is open, and contains $p$ (since $p \in V$). Thus, by definition, there is a $\delta>0$ such that $N_p(\delta) \subset f^{-1}(V)$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. I was in the midst of writing a reply for further clarification until I realized my error. For some reason, I mistook Rudin to be saying that the inverse image was a subset of the neighborhood. Again, thanks for your help! $\endgroup$
    – Journie
    Dec 13, 2017 at 3:17

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.