1
$\begingroup$

I've recently been looking to Function Theory/Real Analysis and I've encountered a bit of a problem I'm not entirely sure how to approach. This isn't from a textbook, rather something I have noticed that may be the case or may not be. Here's the problem:

Let $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be an algebraic function with an existent inverse over $\mathbb{R}$. If $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ is such that $f(\alpha) \in \mathbb{Q}$, is $f^{-1}(\alpha) \not\in \mathbb{Q}$? Is the converse, inverse and contrapositive of this statement true?

EDIT: As pointed out, $f(x) = x$ is a counterexample to this, but since this is obvious, I'll elect to exclude this as a function to be considered.

I've been tempted to generalise everything and brute force from there, although I highly doubt that is the correct approach, let alone a reasonable way to approach this. I feel like I could be missing something really obvious here however I have not been able to even get a proper foothold. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT 2: Found a simple counterexample again, so this question isn't really that troubling anymore.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Focus on examples. Take the counterexample of $f(x) = x = f^{-1}(x)$.

  • For the forward direction, try $\alpha = 1$, which is rational.
  • For the converse, try $\alpha=\pi$, which is irrational.
  • For the inverse, try $\alpha=\pi$.
  • For the contrapositive, try $\alpha=1$.

Each of these give a counterexample to the relevant statement. Remember that, for the statement $P \implies Q$, we have

  • the converse being $Q \implies P$
  • the inverse being $\neg P \implies \neg Q$
  • the contrapositive being $\neg Q \implies \neg P$
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I completely forgot about the identity function. That's a good point. I'll edit the question to exclude that function . $\endgroup$ – LogicAndTruth Mar 26 at 8:35
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense is the negation $\neg P \implies \neg Q$ (which is logically equivalent to the converse)? Surely the negation of $P \implies Q$ is simply $P \land \neg Q$. $\endgroup$ – 雨が好きな人 Mar 28 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ I had some wires crossed, that's my bad. OP meant the inverse, and that's what $\neg P \implies \neg Q$ is. $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Mar 28 at 18:36

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.