0
$\begingroup$

I was studying on Follan's Real Analysis book and in Chapter 5.3, I saw the Open Mapping Theorem which stated (with some adjustment) as follows:

Let $X,Y$ be Banach spaces and $T:X\to Y$ be linear and bounded operator. If $T$ is surjective, then $T$ maps open sets to open set.

Then, based on the expression above, I expect if $T$ is nonlinear then the conclusion must fail. So I consider an example as follows: Let $X=Y=\mathbb{R}$ be (simplest?) Banach spaces and then take a mapping $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ with $f(x) = x^2$. Then consider open interval $U:=(-1,1)$ then $f(U) = [0,1)$ which is not open. Is my thinking correct?

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't "do" functional analysis, but that is the standard good example in topology. (Though not surjective.) $\endgroup$ – Randall Sep 24 '18 at 17:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But $f$ isn't surjective, so you don't have a counterexample. Consider instead a cubic polynomial. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Sep 24 '18 at 18:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think I might be shocked to learn that $[0,1]$ is a Banach space, but then again, I don't know anything about them. $\endgroup$ – Randall Sep 24 '18 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, does $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $f(x)=x^3 -3x^2$ work for the same reason as your proposed example? It's bounded (in the operator sense), onto, but look at $f(0,3)$. $\endgroup$ – Randall Sep 24 '18 at 19:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Randall. There was a crank on this site who, among other odd things, said "Would you be shocked when I tell you that $1$ is a prime number?" $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Sep 25 '18 at 3:41
1
$\begingroup$

Consider $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $f(x)=x^3 -3x^2$. This is bounded (as it's continuous) and surjective. However, the open set $(0,3)$ in the domain maps to $[-4,0)$, which isn't open.

(Aweygan gets the assist.)

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now I don’t like this answer because my intuition on what bounded means is totally shot without having linearity to rely on. Is there a right notion of bounded nonlinear operator? $\endgroup$ – Randall Sep 25 '18 at 11:23

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.