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?
abstract-algebra group-theory relations
|
show 6 more comments
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?
abstract-algebra group-theory relations
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
|
show 6 more comments
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?
abstract-algebra group-theory relations
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
abstract-algebra group-theory relations
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
|
show 6 more comments
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
|
show 6 more comments
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.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
$require{AMScd}$
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.
edited Nov 20 at 12:28
answered Nov 20 at 12:22
freakish
11k1527
11k1527
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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