Existence of a particular inverse transformation Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to show that $varphi(x,y)=(x+f(y),f(x)+y)$ is bijective?Show that $d+1$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of set $G$ equals $0$When is a continuous function piecewise monotone?Show that the natural copy of $mathbbR^n-1$ inside $mathbbR^n$ - namely, $(x_1, x_2,…, x_n-1,0)$ - has measure zeroInverse Function Theorem and InjectivityA particular case of Sard's TheoremShowing 1-1 and invertiblity of a functionDiferentiable inverse of a vector valued functionIf a function $f: left [ a,b right ] to mathbbR^2$ that satisfies some form of continuity, then $f ([a,b])$ has Lebesgue measure of zeroIs the function $f(x)=begincases x+0.2x^2 sin (1/x) & x ne 0\ 0 & x=0endcases$ invertible in a neighborhood of origin?

The code below, is it ill-formed NDR or is it well formed?

What does it mean that physics no longer uses mechanical models to describe phenomena?

Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?

Drawing without replacement: why is the order of draw irrelevant?

Should I follow up with an employee I believe overracted to a mistake I made?

Why doesn't SQL Optimizer use my constraint?

What is the topology associated with the algebras for the ultrafilter monad?

Do any jurisdictions seriously consider reclassifying social media websites as publishers?

Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?

Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours

Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?

Why does the remaining Rebel fleet at the end of Rogue One seem dramatically larger than the one in A New Hope?

Does the Weapon Master feat grant you a fighting style?

How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?

Can a new player join a group only when a new campaign starts?

Chebyshev inequality in terms of RMS

Most bit efficient text communication method?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Why is my ESD wriststrap failing with nitrile gloves on?

Is there a kind of relay only consumes power when switching?

A term for a woman complaining about things/begging in a cute/childish way

Can anything be seen from the center of the Boötes void? How dark would it be?

What is the difference between globalisation and imperialism?

NumericArray versus PackedArray in MMA12



Existence of a particular inverse transformation



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How to show that $varphi(x,y)=(x+f(y),f(x)+y)$ is bijective?Show that $d+1$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of set $G$ equals $0$When is a continuous function piecewise monotone?Show that the natural copy of $mathbbR^n-1$ inside $mathbbR^n$ - namely, $(x_1, x_2,…, x_n-1,0)$ - has measure zeroInverse Function Theorem and InjectivityA particular case of Sard's TheoremShowing 1-1 and invertiblity of a functionDiferentiable inverse of a vector valued functionIf a function $f: left [ a,b right ] to mathbbR^2$ that satisfies some form of continuity, then $f ([a,b])$ has Lebesgue measure of zeroIs the function $f(x)=begincases x+0.2x^2 sin (1/x) & x ne 0\ 0 & x=0endcases$ invertible in a neighborhood of origin?










4












$begingroup$


Let $h : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^d$, where $d < D$, be a differentiable function. I would like to find minimal conditions under which there exists a differentiable function $g : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D-d$ such that the function $f : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D$ defined by $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top$ is invertible. If possible, I would also like to obtain a construction of this $g$ function. I hypothesize that the following conditions might be enough, but I am not sure:



-$h$ is surjective.



-$h$ cannot have the same value on a set with non-zero measure, that is, for every $y in mathbbR^d$, the set $h^-1(y)=xinmathbbR^D : h(x)=y$ has Lebesgue measure 0.



The first condition is clearly necessary, and the reason why I believe that the second condition might be enough is the following:



In order for $f$ to be invertible, $f^-1(z)$ has to be a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. If $g$ was such that $g(x_1)neq g(x_2)$ for every $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $h(x_1)=h(x_2)$, that would ensure that $f^-1(z)$ is indeed a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. My intuition is that the second condition might ensure that such a $g$ function actually exists. Furthermore, if such a $g$ exists that also makes $f$ surjective, the result would follow.



Any help would be very appreciated, either in proving my above conjecture, disproving it, or providing non trivial assumptions about $h$ that would result in the existence of $g$.



Thank you very much!










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    Let $h : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^d$, where $d < D$, be a differentiable function. I would like to find minimal conditions under which there exists a differentiable function $g : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D-d$ such that the function $f : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D$ defined by $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top$ is invertible. If possible, I would also like to obtain a construction of this $g$ function. I hypothesize that the following conditions might be enough, but I am not sure:



    -$h$ is surjective.



    -$h$ cannot have the same value on a set with non-zero measure, that is, for every $y in mathbbR^d$, the set $h^-1(y)=xinmathbbR^D : h(x)=y$ has Lebesgue measure 0.



    The first condition is clearly necessary, and the reason why I believe that the second condition might be enough is the following:



    In order for $f$ to be invertible, $f^-1(z)$ has to be a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. If $g$ was such that $g(x_1)neq g(x_2)$ for every $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $h(x_1)=h(x_2)$, that would ensure that $f^-1(z)$ is indeed a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. My intuition is that the second condition might ensure that such a $g$ function actually exists. Furthermore, if such a $g$ exists that also makes $f$ surjective, the result would follow.



    Any help would be very appreciated, either in proving my above conjecture, disproving it, or providing non trivial assumptions about $h$ that would result in the existence of $g$.



    Thank you very much!










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      Let $h : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^d$, where $d < D$, be a differentiable function. I would like to find minimal conditions under which there exists a differentiable function $g : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D-d$ such that the function $f : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D$ defined by $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top$ is invertible. If possible, I would also like to obtain a construction of this $g$ function. I hypothesize that the following conditions might be enough, but I am not sure:



      -$h$ is surjective.



      -$h$ cannot have the same value on a set with non-zero measure, that is, for every $y in mathbbR^d$, the set $h^-1(y)=xinmathbbR^D : h(x)=y$ has Lebesgue measure 0.



      The first condition is clearly necessary, and the reason why I believe that the second condition might be enough is the following:



      In order for $f$ to be invertible, $f^-1(z)$ has to be a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. If $g$ was such that $g(x_1)neq g(x_2)$ for every $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $h(x_1)=h(x_2)$, that would ensure that $f^-1(z)$ is indeed a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. My intuition is that the second condition might ensure that such a $g$ function actually exists. Furthermore, if such a $g$ exists that also makes $f$ surjective, the result would follow.



      Any help would be very appreciated, either in proving my above conjecture, disproving it, or providing non trivial assumptions about $h$ that would result in the existence of $g$.



      Thank you very much!










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $h : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^d$, where $d < D$, be a differentiable function. I would like to find minimal conditions under which there exists a differentiable function $g : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D-d$ such that the function $f : mathbbR^D rightarrow mathbbR^D$ defined by $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top$ is invertible. If possible, I would also like to obtain a construction of this $g$ function. I hypothesize that the following conditions might be enough, but I am not sure:



      -$h$ is surjective.



      -$h$ cannot have the same value on a set with non-zero measure, that is, for every $y in mathbbR^d$, the set $h^-1(y)=xinmathbbR^D : h(x)=y$ has Lebesgue measure 0.



      The first condition is clearly necessary, and the reason why I believe that the second condition might be enough is the following:



      In order for $f$ to be invertible, $f^-1(z)$ has to be a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. If $g$ was such that $g(x_1)neq g(x_2)$ for every $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that $h(x_1)=h(x_2)$, that would ensure that $f^-1(z)$ is indeed a singleton for every $z in mathbbR^D$. My intuition is that the second condition might ensure that such a $g$ function actually exists. Furthermore, if such a $g$ exists that also makes $f$ surjective, the result would follow.



      Any help would be very appreciated, either in proving my above conjecture, disproving it, or providing non trivial assumptions about $h$ that would result in the existence of $g$.



      Thank you very much!







      analysis differential-topology lebesgue-measure inverse-function






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 3 at 10:36









      Alex Ravsky

      43.4k32583




      43.4k32583










      asked Mar 27 at 15:27









      Vokram8Vokram8

      659




      659




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1





          +50







          $begingroup$

          Assume that a required function $f$ exists. Since $f$ is differentiable, it is continuous, so by the invariance of domain, $f$ is a homeomorphism.



          Then for each $tinBbb R^D-d$ a restriction $f^-1|Bbb R^dtimest$ is a homeomorphism onto the image $L_t=f^-1(Bbb R^dtimest)$. But $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top= (h(x)^top, t^top)^top$ for each $xin L_t$. Thus $h|L_t$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. We shall call a subset $L$ of $Bbb R^D$ an $h$-layer, if $h|L:LtoBbb R^d$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. Thus we have that $Bbb R^D$ is a disjoint union of $h$-layers.



          Also for each $sinBbb R^d$ a set $h^-1(s)=f^-1(stimes Bbb R^D-d)$ is a homeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$.



          Both conditions can fail for a function satisfying the conjecture. For instance, let $D=2$, $d=1$, and $h(x,y)=x^3-x$ for each $(x,y)inBbb R^D$. Then there are no $h$ layers. Indeed, let $L$ be any connected set such that $h(L)=Bbb R^d$. Then there exists $y_-1$ and $y_1$ in $Bbb R$ such that both points $p_-1=(-1,y_-1)$ and $p_1=(1,y_1)$ belongs to $L$. But $h(p_-1)=h(p_1)$, so $L$ is not an $h$-layer. The second condition is violated because a set $h^-1(0)=(x,y):xin-1,0,1,yinBbb R $ is disconnected and hence not homeomorphic to $Bbb R^1$.



          Moreover, it can be easily checked that both partitions of $Bbb R^D$ into $h$-layers and preimages $h^-1(s)$ are parallel (see [BH] for a definition) with respect to a metric $d$ such that $d(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)|$ for each $x,yinBbb R^D$. Then similarly to the proof of the implication $(1)Rightarrow (2)$ in Theorem 1 from [BH] we can show that each of these partitions $mathcal C$ is lower semicontinuous and compactly upper semicontinuous. The latter means that for each compact subset $F$ of $Bbb R^D$ its $mathcal C$-star $St(F;mathcal C)$ is closed in $Bbb R^D$.



          I guess that we can strengthen the above necessary conditions, if we define an $h$-layer $L$ as a submanifold of $Bbb R^D$ such that $h|L$ is a diffeomorphism and require that a set $h^-1(s)$ for $sinBbb R^d$ is a submanifold and a diffeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$. But I didn’t investigate this topic because I am a general topologist, not a differential one.



          References



          [BH] Taras Banakh, Olena Hryniv, A parallel metrization theorem,
          European Journal of Mathematics (2019), 1-4.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Vokram8
            Apr 3 at 23:23










          • $begingroup$
            @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Apr 4 at 0:42











          Your Answer








          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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%2f3164648%2fexistence-of-a-particular-inverse-transformation%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









          1





          +50







          $begingroup$

          Assume that a required function $f$ exists. Since $f$ is differentiable, it is continuous, so by the invariance of domain, $f$ is a homeomorphism.



          Then for each $tinBbb R^D-d$ a restriction $f^-1|Bbb R^dtimest$ is a homeomorphism onto the image $L_t=f^-1(Bbb R^dtimest)$. But $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top= (h(x)^top, t^top)^top$ for each $xin L_t$. Thus $h|L_t$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. We shall call a subset $L$ of $Bbb R^D$ an $h$-layer, if $h|L:LtoBbb R^d$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. Thus we have that $Bbb R^D$ is a disjoint union of $h$-layers.



          Also for each $sinBbb R^d$ a set $h^-1(s)=f^-1(stimes Bbb R^D-d)$ is a homeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$.



          Both conditions can fail for a function satisfying the conjecture. For instance, let $D=2$, $d=1$, and $h(x,y)=x^3-x$ for each $(x,y)inBbb R^D$. Then there are no $h$ layers. Indeed, let $L$ be any connected set such that $h(L)=Bbb R^d$. Then there exists $y_-1$ and $y_1$ in $Bbb R$ such that both points $p_-1=(-1,y_-1)$ and $p_1=(1,y_1)$ belongs to $L$. But $h(p_-1)=h(p_1)$, so $L$ is not an $h$-layer. The second condition is violated because a set $h^-1(0)=(x,y):xin-1,0,1,yinBbb R $ is disconnected and hence not homeomorphic to $Bbb R^1$.



          Moreover, it can be easily checked that both partitions of $Bbb R^D$ into $h$-layers and preimages $h^-1(s)$ are parallel (see [BH] for a definition) with respect to a metric $d$ such that $d(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)|$ for each $x,yinBbb R^D$. Then similarly to the proof of the implication $(1)Rightarrow (2)$ in Theorem 1 from [BH] we can show that each of these partitions $mathcal C$ is lower semicontinuous and compactly upper semicontinuous. The latter means that for each compact subset $F$ of $Bbb R^D$ its $mathcal C$-star $St(F;mathcal C)$ is closed in $Bbb R^D$.



          I guess that we can strengthen the above necessary conditions, if we define an $h$-layer $L$ as a submanifold of $Bbb R^D$ such that $h|L$ is a diffeomorphism and require that a set $h^-1(s)$ for $sinBbb R^d$ is a submanifold and a diffeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$. But I didn’t investigate this topic because I am a general topologist, not a differential one.



          References



          [BH] Taras Banakh, Olena Hryniv, A parallel metrization theorem,
          European Journal of Mathematics (2019), 1-4.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Vokram8
            Apr 3 at 23:23










          • $begingroup$
            @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Apr 4 at 0:42















          1





          +50







          $begingroup$

          Assume that a required function $f$ exists. Since $f$ is differentiable, it is continuous, so by the invariance of domain, $f$ is a homeomorphism.



          Then for each $tinBbb R^D-d$ a restriction $f^-1|Bbb R^dtimest$ is a homeomorphism onto the image $L_t=f^-1(Bbb R^dtimest)$. But $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top= (h(x)^top, t^top)^top$ for each $xin L_t$. Thus $h|L_t$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. We shall call a subset $L$ of $Bbb R^D$ an $h$-layer, if $h|L:LtoBbb R^d$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. Thus we have that $Bbb R^D$ is a disjoint union of $h$-layers.



          Also for each $sinBbb R^d$ a set $h^-1(s)=f^-1(stimes Bbb R^D-d)$ is a homeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$.



          Both conditions can fail for a function satisfying the conjecture. For instance, let $D=2$, $d=1$, and $h(x,y)=x^3-x$ for each $(x,y)inBbb R^D$. Then there are no $h$ layers. Indeed, let $L$ be any connected set such that $h(L)=Bbb R^d$. Then there exists $y_-1$ and $y_1$ in $Bbb R$ such that both points $p_-1=(-1,y_-1)$ and $p_1=(1,y_1)$ belongs to $L$. But $h(p_-1)=h(p_1)$, so $L$ is not an $h$-layer. The second condition is violated because a set $h^-1(0)=(x,y):xin-1,0,1,yinBbb R $ is disconnected and hence not homeomorphic to $Bbb R^1$.



          Moreover, it can be easily checked that both partitions of $Bbb R^D$ into $h$-layers and preimages $h^-1(s)$ are parallel (see [BH] for a definition) with respect to a metric $d$ such that $d(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)|$ for each $x,yinBbb R^D$. Then similarly to the proof of the implication $(1)Rightarrow (2)$ in Theorem 1 from [BH] we can show that each of these partitions $mathcal C$ is lower semicontinuous and compactly upper semicontinuous. The latter means that for each compact subset $F$ of $Bbb R^D$ its $mathcal C$-star $St(F;mathcal C)$ is closed in $Bbb R^D$.



          I guess that we can strengthen the above necessary conditions, if we define an $h$-layer $L$ as a submanifold of $Bbb R^D$ such that $h|L$ is a diffeomorphism and require that a set $h^-1(s)$ for $sinBbb R^d$ is a submanifold and a diffeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$. But I didn’t investigate this topic because I am a general topologist, not a differential one.



          References



          [BH] Taras Banakh, Olena Hryniv, A parallel metrization theorem,
          European Journal of Mathematics (2019), 1-4.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Vokram8
            Apr 3 at 23:23










          • $begingroup$
            @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Apr 4 at 0:42













          1





          +50







          1





          +50



          1




          +50



          $begingroup$

          Assume that a required function $f$ exists. Since $f$ is differentiable, it is continuous, so by the invariance of domain, $f$ is a homeomorphism.



          Then for each $tinBbb R^D-d$ a restriction $f^-1|Bbb R^dtimest$ is a homeomorphism onto the image $L_t=f^-1(Bbb R^dtimest)$. But $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top= (h(x)^top, t^top)^top$ for each $xin L_t$. Thus $h|L_t$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. We shall call a subset $L$ of $Bbb R^D$ an $h$-layer, if $h|L:LtoBbb R^d$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. Thus we have that $Bbb R^D$ is a disjoint union of $h$-layers.



          Also for each $sinBbb R^d$ a set $h^-1(s)=f^-1(stimes Bbb R^D-d)$ is a homeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$.



          Both conditions can fail for a function satisfying the conjecture. For instance, let $D=2$, $d=1$, and $h(x,y)=x^3-x$ for each $(x,y)inBbb R^D$. Then there are no $h$ layers. Indeed, let $L$ be any connected set such that $h(L)=Bbb R^d$. Then there exists $y_-1$ and $y_1$ in $Bbb R$ such that both points $p_-1=(-1,y_-1)$ and $p_1=(1,y_1)$ belongs to $L$. But $h(p_-1)=h(p_1)$, so $L$ is not an $h$-layer. The second condition is violated because a set $h^-1(0)=(x,y):xin-1,0,1,yinBbb R $ is disconnected and hence not homeomorphic to $Bbb R^1$.



          Moreover, it can be easily checked that both partitions of $Bbb R^D$ into $h$-layers and preimages $h^-1(s)$ are parallel (see [BH] for a definition) with respect to a metric $d$ such that $d(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)|$ for each $x,yinBbb R^D$. Then similarly to the proof of the implication $(1)Rightarrow (2)$ in Theorem 1 from [BH] we can show that each of these partitions $mathcal C$ is lower semicontinuous and compactly upper semicontinuous. The latter means that for each compact subset $F$ of $Bbb R^D$ its $mathcal C$-star $St(F;mathcal C)$ is closed in $Bbb R^D$.



          I guess that we can strengthen the above necessary conditions, if we define an $h$-layer $L$ as a submanifold of $Bbb R^D$ such that $h|L$ is a diffeomorphism and require that a set $h^-1(s)$ for $sinBbb R^d$ is a submanifold and a diffeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$. But I didn’t investigate this topic because I am a general topologist, not a differential one.



          References



          [BH] Taras Banakh, Olena Hryniv, A parallel metrization theorem,
          European Journal of Mathematics (2019), 1-4.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Assume that a required function $f$ exists. Since $f$ is differentiable, it is continuous, so by the invariance of domain, $f$ is a homeomorphism.



          Then for each $tinBbb R^D-d$ a restriction $f^-1|Bbb R^dtimest$ is a homeomorphism onto the image $L_t=f^-1(Bbb R^dtimest)$. But $f(x)=(h(x)^top, g(x)^top)^top= (h(x)^top, t^top)^top$ for each $xin L_t$. Thus $h|L_t$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. We shall call a subset $L$ of $Bbb R^D$ an $h$-layer, if $h|L:LtoBbb R^d$ is a homeomorphism onto the image. Thus we have that $Bbb R^D$ is a disjoint union of $h$-layers.



          Also for each $sinBbb R^d$ a set $h^-1(s)=f^-1(stimes Bbb R^D-d)$ is a homeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$.



          Both conditions can fail for a function satisfying the conjecture. For instance, let $D=2$, $d=1$, and $h(x,y)=x^3-x$ for each $(x,y)inBbb R^D$. Then there are no $h$ layers. Indeed, let $L$ be any connected set such that $h(L)=Bbb R^d$. Then there exists $y_-1$ and $y_1$ in $Bbb R$ such that both points $p_-1=(-1,y_-1)$ and $p_1=(1,y_1)$ belongs to $L$. But $h(p_-1)=h(p_1)$, so $L$ is not an $h$-layer. The second condition is violated because a set $h^-1(0)=(x,y):xin-1,0,1,yinBbb R $ is disconnected and hence not homeomorphic to $Bbb R^1$.



          Moreover, it can be easily checked that both partitions of $Bbb R^D$ into $h$-layers and preimages $h^-1(s)$ are parallel (see [BH] for a definition) with respect to a metric $d$ such that $d(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)|$ for each $x,yinBbb R^D$. Then similarly to the proof of the implication $(1)Rightarrow (2)$ in Theorem 1 from [BH] we can show that each of these partitions $mathcal C$ is lower semicontinuous and compactly upper semicontinuous. The latter means that for each compact subset $F$ of $Bbb R^D$ its $mathcal C$-star $St(F;mathcal C)$ is closed in $Bbb R^D$.



          I guess that we can strengthen the above necessary conditions, if we define an $h$-layer $L$ as a submanifold of $Bbb R^D$ such that $h|L$ is a diffeomorphism and require that a set $h^-1(s)$ for $sinBbb R^d$ is a submanifold and a diffeomorphic image of a space $Bbb R^D-d$. But I didn’t investigate this topic because I am a general topologist, not a differential one.



          References



          [BH] Taras Banakh, Olena Hryniv, A parallel metrization theorem,
          European Journal of Mathematics (2019), 1-4.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 4 at 0:41

























          answered Apr 3 at 10:35









          Alex RavskyAlex Ravsky

          43.4k32583




          43.4k32583







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Vokram8
            Apr 3 at 23:23










          • $begingroup$
            @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Apr 4 at 0:42












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
            $endgroup$
            – Vokram8
            Apr 3 at 23:23










          • $begingroup$
            @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Alex Ravsky
            Apr 4 at 0:42







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
          $endgroup$
          – Vokram8
          Apr 3 at 23:23




          $begingroup$
          Thank you, this does indeed disprove my conjecture. I just wanted to point out two small typos: in the definition of L_t it should be t and not 0.
          $endgroup$
          – Vokram8
          Apr 3 at 23:23












          $begingroup$
          @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Apr 4 at 0:42




          $begingroup$
          @Vokram8 Thanks. I corrected and updated the answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Alex Ravsky
          Apr 4 at 0:42

















          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3164648%2fexistence-of-a-particular-inverse-transformation%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

          Moe incest case Sentencing See also References Navigation menu"'Australian Josef Fritzl' fathered four children by daughter""Small town recoils in horror at 'Australian Fritzl' incest case""Victorian rape allegations echo Fritzl case - Just In (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)""Incest father jailed for 22 years""'Australian Fritzl' sentenced to 22 years in prison for abusing daughter for three decades""RSJ v The Queen"

          Who is our nearest planetary neighbor, on average?Santa Claus flies to the South PoleSeven Spheres of Unequal Mass, a weighing problem with a twistDescribe a large integerFast Mental Calculation of $7.5^7$Math in Space (without the help of celebrities)Find the value of $bigstar$: Puzzle 8 - InequalityWho drinks beer while running anyway?A Crucial DeliveryRanking And AverageHow long will my money last at roulette?

          Daza language Contents Vocabulary Phonology References External links Navigation menudaza1242Daza"Dazaga"eeee178086576