Abstract
Inverse limits with upper semicontinuous bonding functions exhibit fundamental differences from inverse limits with mappings in the sense that the theorems that hold when the bonding functions in an inverse limit sequence are mappings almost always fail if the bonding functions are set-valued. This chapter is devoted to examining some of those differences. Of course, these differences provide a source for research questions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cornelius, A.N.: Inverse limits of set-valued functions. Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University (2008)
Ingram, W.T.: Inverse limits with upper semi-continuous bonding functions: Problems and partial solutions. Topology Proc. 36, 353–373 (2010)
Ingram, W.T., Mahavier, W.S.: Inverse limits of upper semi-continuous set valued functions. Houston J. Math. 32, 119–130 (2006)
Ingram, W.T., Mahavier, W.S.: Inverse limits: From continua to Chaos. In: Developments in Mathematics, vol. 25. Springer, New York (2012)
Varagona, S.: Inverse limits with upper semi-continuous bonding functions and indecomposability. Houston J. Math. 37, 1017–1034 (2011)
Williams, B.R.: Indecomposability in inverse limits. Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 W.T. Ingram
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ingram, W.T. (2012). Mappings versus Set-Valued Functions. In: An Introduction to Inverse Limits with Set-valued Functions. SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4487-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4487-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4486-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4487-9
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)