Prove or disprove that the set of continuous mappings $phicolon [0;1]to [0;1]$ such that […] forms a group.











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












The full question: Prove or disprove that the set of all continuous relations mappings $ phicolon [0;1]to [0;1]$, for which $phi(0)=0$, $phi(1)=1$ and $x<y implies phi(x)< phi(y)$ forms a group with respect to the operation of superposition/composition.



I was able to prove closure by noting that the intersection of their domains is simply the interval $[0;1]$ itself thus the composition will also be a relation mapping from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$.



At this point, I decided to prove associativity. I first considered this well-known proof:
$$hcirc(gcirc f)(x)=h(gcirc f(x))= h(g(f(x))=hcirc g(f(x))=(hcirc g)circ f(x)$$
However, this is a proof for function composition whereas the question is about relations mappings. So, since the question asked about relations mappings and not just functions, is this proof of associativity still valid? After all, it seems to me that all the continuous increasing relations mappings from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ are indeed functions. (I'm guessing this statement would require it's own proof, which i'm trying to draft as well.)



Stuck on associativity, I decided to see if the other group axioms would be easier to work with. I verified than an identity function $i(x)=x$ exists, satisfying the conditions of the problem. Then I had more trouble with proving that the inverses will also be continious and within the interval so I'm inclined to conclude that the set is not a group. Any hints on how to proceed with this proof or disproof?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:22










  • I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 22:31










  • OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:34










  • And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:35










  • The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 23:03

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












The full question: Prove or disprove that the set of all continuous relations mappings $ phicolon [0;1]to [0;1]$, for which $phi(0)=0$, $phi(1)=1$ and $x<y implies phi(x)< phi(y)$ forms a group with respect to the operation of superposition/composition.



I was able to prove closure by noting that the intersection of their domains is simply the interval $[0;1]$ itself thus the composition will also be a relation mapping from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$.



At this point, I decided to prove associativity. I first considered this well-known proof:
$$hcirc(gcirc f)(x)=h(gcirc f(x))= h(g(f(x))=hcirc g(f(x))=(hcirc g)circ f(x)$$
However, this is a proof for function composition whereas the question is about relations mappings. So, since the question asked about relations mappings and not just functions, is this proof of associativity still valid? After all, it seems to me that all the continuous increasing relations mappings from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ are indeed functions. (I'm guessing this statement would require it's own proof, which i'm trying to draft as well.)



Stuck on associativity, I decided to see if the other group axioms would be easier to work with. I verified than an identity function $i(x)=x$ exists, satisfying the conditions of the problem. Then I had more trouble with proving that the inverses will also be continious and within the interval so I'm inclined to conclude that the set is not a group. Any hints on how to proceed with this proof or disproof?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:22










  • I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 22:31










  • OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:34










  • And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:35










  • The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 23:03















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











The full question: Prove or disprove that the set of all continuous relations mappings $ phicolon [0;1]to [0;1]$, for which $phi(0)=0$, $phi(1)=1$ and $x<y implies phi(x)< phi(y)$ forms a group with respect to the operation of superposition/composition.



I was able to prove closure by noting that the intersection of their domains is simply the interval $[0;1]$ itself thus the composition will also be a relation mapping from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$.



At this point, I decided to prove associativity. I first considered this well-known proof:
$$hcirc(gcirc f)(x)=h(gcirc f(x))= h(g(f(x))=hcirc g(f(x))=(hcirc g)circ f(x)$$
However, this is a proof for function composition whereas the question is about relations mappings. So, since the question asked about relations mappings and not just functions, is this proof of associativity still valid? After all, it seems to me that all the continuous increasing relations mappings from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ are indeed functions. (I'm guessing this statement would require it's own proof, which i'm trying to draft as well.)



Stuck on associativity, I decided to see if the other group axioms would be easier to work with. I verified than an identity function $i(x)=x$ exists, satisfying the conditions of the problem. Then I had more trouble with proving that the inverses will also be continious and within the interval so I'm inclined to conclude that the set is not a group. Any hints on how to proceed with this proof or disproof?










share|cite|improve this question















The full question: Prove or disprove that the set of all continuous relations mappings $ phicolon [0;1]to [0;1]$, for which $phi(0)=0$, $phi(1)=1$ and $x<y implies phi(x)< phi(y)$ forms a group with respect to the operation of superposition/composition.



I was able to prove closure by noting that the intersection of their domains is simply the interval $[0;1]$ itself thus the composition will also be a relation mapping from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$.



At this point, I decided to prove associativity. I first considered this well-known proof:
$$hcirc(gcirc f)(x)=h(gcirc f(x))= h(g(f(x))=hcirc g(f(x))=(hcirc g)circ f(x)$$
However, this is a proof for function composition whereas the question is about relations mappings. So, since the question asked about relations mappings and not just functions, is this proof of associativity still valid? After all, it seems to me that all the continuous increasing relations mappings from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ are indeed functions. (I'm guessing this statement would require it's own proof, which i'm trying to draft as well.)



Stuck on associativity, I decided to see if the other group axioms would be easier to work with. I verified than an identity function $i(x)=x$ exists, satisfying the conditions of the problem. Then I had more trouble with proving that the inverses will also be continious and within the interval so I'm inclined to conclude that the set is not a group. Any hints on how to proceed with this proof or disproof?







abstract-algebra group-theory relations






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 20 at 11:43

























asked Nov 19 at 22:20









E.Nole

6219




6219








  • 1




    What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:22










  • I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 22:31










  • OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:34










  • And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:35










  • The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 23:03
















  • 1




    What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:22










  • I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 22:31










  • OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:34










  • And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
    – Eric Wofsey
    Nov 19 at 22:35










  • The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
    – E.Nole
    Nov 19 at 23:03










1




1




What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:22




What do you mean by "continuous relation"? What does $phi(x)$ mean if $phi$ is a relation?
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:22












I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
– E.Nole
Nov 19 at 22:31




I'm not sure I understand your question. (It seems there is some subtext?) Well, a relation is any set of ordered pairs. A continuous relation is a relation which is defined for all points in a given interval.
– E.Nole
Nov 19 at 22:31












OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:34




OK, a relation is a set of ordered pairs. What does $phi(0)=0$ mean, then, if $phi$ is a set of ordered pairs? (The subtext is that "continuous relation" is not a standard term at all, nor is it standard to use notation like $phi(x)$ when talking about relations.)
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:34












And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:35




And, what does it mean for a relation to be "defined" for a point? Maybe $phi$ is defined for $x$ if there exists $y$ such that $(x,y)inphi$?
– Eric Wofsey
Nov 19 at 22:35












The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
– E.Nole
Nov 19 at 23:03






The problem was translated from a Russian text so it's possible some details were missed. However it should be more or less clear what is being asked. This is how I understand it: Let G be the set of relations $ phi_n$ from $[0;1]$ to $[0;1]$ satisfying the conditions described in the question. The question is whether or not G and the operation of composition forms a group. Does this help clarify?
– E.Nole
Nov 19 at 23:03












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













$require{AMScd}$
So first of all the associativity follows from the general fact about functions: if we have



$$begin{CD}
A @>{f}>> B @>{g}>> C @>{h}>> D
end{CD} $$



then $hcirc(gcirc f)=(hcirc g)circ f$ regardless of what those functions are. This can be checked by evaluating each side at $xin A$ as you've done yourself.



Now the set of all bijections (not necessarily continuous) from a set to itself is a group together with $circ$ as a group multiplication. Denote this group by $mathcal{F}(X)$.



So now it is enough to show that the set you are looking at is a subgroup of $mathcal{F}(X)$.



(1) So first of all if $f:[0,1]to[0,1]$ is such that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$ and $f$ is continuous and monotonic then $f$ is a bijection. This follows from the intermediate value theorem.



Denote by $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ the set of all those functions.



(2) The set $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ is closed under $circ$. This you claim you've shown. The proof is quite simple though. If $x<y$ then $f(x)<f(y)$ and thus so is $g(f(x))<g(f(y))$. Meaning $gcirc finmathcal{M}([0,1])$ if both $f,ginmathcal{M}([0,1])$.



(3) If $fin mathcal{M}([0,1])$ then $f^{-1}inmathcal{M}([0,1])$. So obviously $f^{-1}(0)=0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=1$. Now we will show that $f^{-1}$ is monotonic. Indeed, assume that $x<y$. Then $x=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$ since $f$ is bijective. But since $f$ is monotonic then case when $a=b$ or $a>b$ are impossible. It follows that $a<b$ and thus $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y)$.



Finally $f^{-1}$ is continuous simply because $[0,1]$ is compact and so $f$ is closed.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005606%2fprove-or-disprove-that-the-set-of-continuous-mappings-phi-colon-01-to-01%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    $require{AMScd}$
    So first of all the associativity follows from the general fact about functions: if we have



    $$begin{CD}
    A @>{f}>> B @>{g}>> C @>{h}>> D
    end{CD} $$



    then $hcirc(gcirc f)=(hcirc g)circ f$ regardless of what those functions are. This can be checked by evaluating each side at $xin A$ as you've done yourself.



    Now the set of all bijections (not necessarily continuous) from a set to itself is a group together with $circ$ as a group multiplication. Denote this group by $mathcal{F}(X)$.



    So now it is enough to show that the set you are looking at is a subgroup of $mathcal{F}(X)$.



    (1) So first of all if $f:[0,1]to[0,1]$ is such that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$ and $f$ is continuous and monotonic then $f$ is a bijection. This follows from the intermediate value theorem.



    Denote by $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ the set of all those functions.



    (2) The set $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ is closed under $circ$. This you claim you've shown. The proof is quite simple though. If $x<y$ then $f(x)<f(y)$ and thus so is $g(f(x))<g(f(y))$. Meaning $gcirc finmathcal{M}([0,1])$ if both $f,ginmathcal{M}([0,1])$.



    (3) If $fin mathcal{M}([0,1])$ then $f^{-1}inmathcal{M}([0,1])$. So obviously $f^{-1}(0)=0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=1$. Now we will show that $f^{-1}$ is monotonic. Indeed, assume that $x<y$. Then $x=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$ since $f$ is bijective. But since $f$ is monotonic then case when $a=b$ or $a>b$ are impossible. It follows that $a<b$ and thus $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y)$.



    Finally $f^{-1}$ is continuous simply because $[0,1]$ is compact and so $f$ is closed.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      $require{AMScd}$
      So first of all the associativity follows from the general fact about functions: if we have



      $$begin{CD}
      A @>{f}>> B @>{g}>> C @>{h}>> D
      end{CD} $$



      then $hcirc(gcirc f)=(hcirc g)circ f$ regardless of what those functions are. This can be checked by evaluating each side at $xin A$ as you've done yourself.



      Now the set of all bijections (not necessarily continuous) from a set to itself is a group together with $circ$ as a group multiplication. Denote this group by $mathcal{F}(X)$.



      So now it is enough to show that the set you are looking at is a subgroup of $mathcal{F}(X)$.



      (1) So first of all if $f:[0,1]to[0,1]$ is such that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$ and $f$ is continuous and monotonic then $f$ is a bijection. This follows from the intermediate value theorem.



      Denote by $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ the set of all those functions.



      (2) The set $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ is closed under $circ$. This you claim you've shown. The proof is quite simple though. If $x<y$ then $f(x)<f(y)$ and thus so is $g(f(x))<g(f(y))$. Meaning $gcirc finmathcal{M}([0,1])$ if both $f,ginmathcal{M}([0,1])$.



      (3) If $fin mathcal{M}([0,1])$ then $f^{-1}inmathcal{M}([0,1])$. So obviously $f^{-1}(0)=0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=1$. Now we will show that $f^{-1}$ is monotonic. Indeed, assume that $x<y$. Then $x=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$ since $f$ is bijective. But since $f$ is monotonic then case when $a=b$ or $a>b$ are impossible. It follows that $a<b$ and thus $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y)$.



      Finally $f^{-1}$ is continuous simply because $[0,1]$ is compact and so $f$ is closed.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        $require{AMScd}$
        So first of all the associativity follows from the general fact about functions: if we have



        $$begin{CD}
        A @>{f}>> B @>{g}>> C @>{h}>> D
        end{CD} $$



        then $hcirc(gcirc f)=(hcirc g)circ f$ regardless of what those functions are. This can be checked by evaluating each side at $xin A$ as you've done yourself.



        Now the set of all bijections (not necessarily continuous) from a set to itself is a group together with $circ$ as a group multiplication. Denote this group by $mathcal{F}(X)$.



        So now it is enough to show that the set you are looking at is a subgroup of $mathcal{F}(X)$.



        (1) So first of all if $f:[0,1]to[0,1]$ is such that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$ and $f$ is continuous and monotonic then $f$ is a bijection. This follows from the intermediate value theorem.



        Denote by $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ the set of all those functions.



        (2) The set $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ is closed under $circ$. This you claim you've shown. The proof is quite simple though. If $x<y$ then $f(x)<f(y)$ and thus so is $g(f(x))<g(f(y))$. Meaning $gcirc finmathcal{M}([0,1])$ if both $f,ginmathcal{M}([0,1])$.



        (3) If $fin mathcal{M}([0,1])$ then $f^{-1}inmathcal{M}([0,1])$. So obviously $f^{-1}(0)=0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=1$. Now we will show that $f^{-1}$ is monotonic. Indeed, assume that $x<y$. Then $x=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$ since $f$ is bijective. But since $f$ is monotonic then case when $a=b$ or $a>b$ are impossible. It follows that $a<b$ and thus $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y)$.



        Finally $f^{-1}$ is continuous simply because $[0,1]$ is compact and so $f$ is closed.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        $require{AMScd}$
        So first of all the associativity follows from the general fact about functions: if we have



        $$begin{CD}
        A @>{f}>> B @>{g}>> C @>{h}>> D
        end{CD} $$



        then $hcirc(gcirc f)=(hcirc g)circ f$ regardless of what those functions are. This can be checked by evaluating each side at $xin A$ as you've done yourself.



        Now the set of all bijections (not necessarily continuous) from a set to itself is a group together with $circ$ as a group multiplication. Denote this group by $mathcal{F}(X)$.



        So now it is enough to show that the set you are looking at is a subgroup of $mathcal{F}(X)$.



        (1) So first of all if $f:[0,1]to[0,1]$ is such that $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$ and $f$ is continuous and monotonic then $f$ is a bijection. This follows from the intermediate value theorem.



        Denote by $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ the set of all those functions.



        (2) The set $mathcal{M}([0,1])$ is closed under $circ$. This you claim you've shown. The proof is quite simple though. If $x<y$ then $f(x)<f(y)$ and thus so is $g(f(x))<g(f(y))$. Meaning $gcirc finmathcal{M}([0,1])$ if both $f,ginmathcal{M}([0,1])$.



        (3) If $fin mathcal{M}([0,1])$ then $f^{-1}inmathcal{M}([0,1])$. So obviously $f^{-1}(0)=0$ and $f^{-1}(1)=1$. Now we will show that $f^{-1}$ is monotonic. Indeed, assume that $x<y$. Then $x=f(a)$ and $y=f(b)$ since $f$ is bijective. But since $f$ is monotonic then case when $a=b$ or $a>b$ are impossible. It follows that $a<b$ and thus $f^{-1}(x)<f^{-1}(y)$.



        Finally $f^{-1}$ is continuous simply because $[0,1]$ is compact and so $f$ is closed.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 20 at 12:28

























        answered Nov 20 at 12:22









        freakish

        11k1527




        11k1527






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005606%2fprove-or-disprove-that-the-set-of-continuous-mappings-phi-colon-01-to-01%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa