7
$\begingroup$

Prove that there does not exist a continuous, bijective function $f:[0,1)\to \mathbb{R}.$

By contradiction I can assume a function exists, so that function is surjective, onto and continuous. And I know I need to use the intermediate value theorem but I can't create such a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

From the interaction in comments I think OP needs bit more elaboration on the hint by Asaf. I will however refrain from providing a complete solution.

Assume that there is a function $f$ defined on $[0, 1)$ which is continuous and a bijection from $[0, 1)$ to $\mathbb{R}$. It means that $f$ is one-one function in particular i.e $f(a) = f(b)$ implies $a = b$.

Next let's consider $f(0)$ and $f(1/2)$. Because $f$ is one-one we must have $f(0) \neq f(1/2)$.

Let's assume that $f(0) < f(1/2)$ (the case $f(0) > f(1/2)$ can be handled similarly). Now we need to prove that if $x \in (0, 1)$ then $f(0) < f(x)$. This is where you need to use IVT for continuous functions. You should be able to do this by following Asaf's comments. And then we know that $f(0)$ is the minimum value of $f(x)$ and hence the part $(-\infty, f(0))$ of $\mathbb{R}$ is not mapped by this function $f$ and thus $f$ is not onto $\mathbb{R}$.

The proof of $f(0) < f(x)$ for all $x \in (0, 1)$ proceeds as follows. Clearly $f$ is one-one so $f(0) \neq f(x)$. If $x = 1/2$ then we already know that $f(0) < f(1/2) = f(x)$. So let $x \neq 1/2$. If $f(0) > f(x)$ then $f(x) < f(0) < f(1/2)$ so that $f(0)$ lies between $f(x)$ and $f(1/2)$ and hence by IVT we have ..... (I hope OP will be able to complete the dots)

If $f(0) > f(1/2)$ then we can show that $f(x) < f(0)$ for all $x \in (0, 1)$ so that $f(0)$ is the maximum value of $f$ and again $f$ is not onto $\mathbb{R}$.

Another thing to note. There is nothing special in $1/2$ we have chosen above. It can be replaced by any number lying in $(0, 1)$.

$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

HINT: Show that a continuous injection is either order preserving or order reversing.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Asaf, im not sure what you mean by order preserving. But is it okay if I do this? suppose there exists such a function. Let $x\in [0,1)$ such that $f(x) <f(0)$ thus $f(0) \in [f(x),f(1)]$ therefore there exists a $y$ such that $f(y) = f(0)$ which is a contradiction to one to one? Is that okay or can I not assume there exists $f(x) <f(a)$? $\endgroup$ – user104235 Nov 20 '13 at 2:07
  • $\begingroup$ To expand a bit on Asaf's hint, a continuous one-one function is either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing, hence either $f(0)$ is a minimum or a maximum of $f$ and thus range of $f$ is not $\mathbb{R}$, but an interval with one end point included. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Nov 20 '13 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ @ParamanandSingh So I cant do it that way since its not strictly increasing or decreasing. $\endgroup$ – user104235 Nov 20 '13 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ @ParamanandSingh So I have this. $f([0,1/2])$ is equal to either $[f(0),f(1/2)]$ or $[f(1/2),f(0)],$ so assume it equals $[f(0),f(1/2)].$ What can I say about $f(3/4)$? It has to be greater than $f(1/2)$ right? $\endgroup$ – user104235 Nov 20 '13 at 6:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ After Asaf's comments I think you must have got a clear idea of what needs to be done. What Asaf has shown in his comments is that "if a continuous function changes its direction of growth (like the graph rises and falls) then it will not be one-one". This is the crux of the solution. $\endgroup$ – Paramanand Singh Nov 20 '13 at 7:59
6
$\begingroup$

Let $f : [0,1) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a bijection. Then the restriction of $f$ to $(0,1)$ is a continuous bijection with range $\mathbb{R} - {f(0)}$ which is clearly disconnected but (0,1) is connected.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Since there are continuous bijections (even homeomorphisms) from $(0,1)$ to $\mathbb R$, it somehow must have to do with that $0$. Now, how do we use it?

One observation would be that such a map $f$ restricts to a continuous bijection from $(0,1)$ to $\mathbb R\setminus\{f(0)\}$, the real line without one point. Why can such a map not exist?

A different version of the same argument would be that for such a map $f$ there would have to be an $a\in(0,1)$ with $f(a)<f(0)$ and a $b\in(0,1)$ with $f(b)>f(0)$. Now, what would the intermediate value theorem tell us then, and how would that lead to a contradiction?

$\endgroup$

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.