If , one of and holds. Since is strictly increasing, the corresponding values are strictly ordered, so . Thus is an injection. Every element of the image of a function equals for some , which is precisely surjectivity onto that image of a function. Hence is a bijection.
Let lie in , and put and . Equality would imply . If , strict monotonicity of would give . Both are impossible, so . Therefore the inverse function is strictly increasing.
For , define
This nonempty set is bounded above by , so . Given , the supremum property supplies with . Whenever , monotonicity gives
This proves the left-hand one-sided limit .
For , define
Here . Choose with , using the infimum property. For , monotonicity gives , proving the right-hand one-sided limit . Thus
where the relevant one-sided limits exist, including the indicated single one-sided limit at each endpoint.
At an interior point, continuity implies both one-sided limits equal . Conversely, equality and the displayed inequalities force both to equal , giving continuity. Therefore
If is a continuous function, the intermediate value theorem ensures that every value between and is attained. Monotonicity excludes values outside that range, so .
Conversely, suppose this equality of sets holds. At an interior point, if , any strictly between these two numbers lies in . Yet inputs below have values at most and inputs at or above have values at least , so no input attains . This contradicts surjectivity. The same argument excludes , so part (b) gives continuity at every interior point.
At , a strict gap likewise leaves every value between them unattained; hence , giving right continuity. At , the corresponding argument gives and left continuity. These are the appropriate endpoint notions on . Hence
With the strict monotonicity assumed at the start of the question, parts (a) and (c) give a strictly increasing inverse function
Its image of a function is exactly the interval between its endpoint values. Apply part (c) to , with domain , to conclude that is a continuous function, including at both endpoints.
If the word “increasing” in this subpart were interpreted as merely nondecreasing, an inverse function need not exist: a constant function is a counterexample. The preceding strict hypothesis supplies the required injectivity.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.