Simplifying a proof that $f$ and $g$ are mutually inverse functions knowing that $f$ is an injection











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












To prove that $f$ and $g$ are mutually inverse bijections $Ato B$ and $Bto A$, it is necessary to prove:




  • that really $f:Ato B$ and $g:Bto A$;

  • for every $x_0in A$ and $y=f(x_0)$ we have $x_1=x_0$ for $x_1=g(y)$;

  • for every $y_0in B$ and $x=g(y_0)$ we have $y_1=y_0$ for $y_1=f(x)$.


Now suppose we already know that $f$ is an injection. Knowing this which items of the above list may be skipped without breaking the proof that they are mutually inverse?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
    – porton
    yesterday















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












To prove that $f$ and $g$ are mutually inverse bijections $Ato B$ and $Bto A$, it is necessary to prove:




  • that really $f:Ato B$ and $g:Bto A$;

  • for every $x_0in A$ and $y=f(x_0)$ we have $x_1=x_0$ for $x_1=g(y)$;

  • for every $y_0in B$ and $x=g(y_0)$ we have $y_1=y_0$ for $y_1=f(x)$.


Now suppose we already know that $f$ is an injection. Knowing this which items of the above list may be skipped without breaking the proof that they are mutually inverse?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
    – porton
    yesterday













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











To prove that $f$ and $g$ are mutually inverse bijections $Ato B$ and $Bto A$, it is necessary to prove:




  • that really $f:Ato B$ and $g:Bto A$;

  • for every $x_0in A$ and $y=f(x_0)$ we have $x_1=x_0$ for $x_1=g(y)$;

  • for every $y_0in B$ and $x=g(y_0)$ we have $y_1=y_0$ for $y_1=f(x)$.


Now suppose we already know that $f$ is an injection. Knowing this which items of the above list may be skipped without breaking the proof that they are mutually inverse?










share|cite|improve this question













To prove that $f$ and $g$ are mutually inverse bijections $Ato B$ and $Bto A$, it is necessary to prove:




  • that really $f:Ato B$ and $g:Bto A$;

  • for every $x_0in A$ and $y=f(x_0)$ we have $x_1=x_0$ for $x_1=g(y)$;

  • for every $y_0in B$ and $x=g(y_0)$ we have $y_1=y_0$ for $y_1=f(x)$.


Now suppose we already know that $f$ is an injection. Knowing this which items of the above list may be skipped without breaking the proof that they are mutually inverse?







functions inverse-function






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked yesterday









porton

1,86011127




1,86011127












  • Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
    – porton
    yesterday


















  • Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
    – porton
    yesterday
















Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
– porton
yesterday




Hm, it seems that all items involve $g$. So just removing an item would break the proof, even if I add that $f$ is an injection. Well, maybe there is any way to simplify the proof under assumption of injectivity of $f$ anyway?
– porton
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










It's a bit easier if we rephrase your conditions thus:





  • $f in A to B$ and $g in B to A$

  • for all $a in A$, $g(f(a)) = a$

  • for all $b in B$, $f(g(b)) = b$


If the third condition holds, and we put $f(a)$ for $b$, then we get:
$$
f(g(f(a)) = f(a)
$$

If also $f$ is an injection (so that $f(x) = f(y)$ implies $x = y$), then we can "cancel" the $f$ on the two sides of the above equation giving:
$$
g(f(a)) = a
$$

which is the second condition.



So if $f$ is an injection you don't need to check the second condition. (By a somewhat similar argument, if $g$ is a surjection, you don't need to check the third condition.)






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%2f3007024%2fsimplifying-a-proof-that-f-and-g-are-mutually-inverse-functions-knowing-that%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
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    It's a bit easier if we rephrase your conditions thus:





    • $f in A to B$ and $g in B to A$

    • for all $a in A$, $g(f(a)) = a$

    • for all $b in B$, $f(g(b)) = b$


    If the third condition holds, and we put $f(a)$ for $b$, then we get:
    $$
    f(g(f(a)) = f(a)
    $$

    If also $f$ is an injection (so that $f(x) = f(y)$ implies $x = y$), then we can "cancel" the $f$ on the two sides of the above equation giving:
    $$
    g(f(a)) = a
    $$

    which is the second condition.



    So if $f$ is an injection you don't need to check the second condition. (By a somewhat similar argument, if $g$ is a surjection, you don't need to check the third condition.)






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      2
      down vote



      accepted










      It's a bit easier if we rephrase your conditions thus:





      • $f in A to B$ and $g in B to A$

      • for all $a in A$, $g(f(a)) = a$

      • for all $b in B$, $f(g(b)) = b$


      If the third condition holds, and we put $f(a)$ for $b$, then we get:
      $$
      f(g(f(a)) = f(a)
      $$

      If also $f$ is an injection (so that $f(x) = f(y)$ implies $x = y$), then we can "cancel" the $f$ on the two sides of the above equation giving:
      $$
      g(f(a)) = a
      $$

      which is the second condition.



      So if $f$ is an injection you don't need to check the second condition. (By a somewhat similar argument, if $g$ is a surjection, you don't need to check the third condition.)






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        2
        down vote



        accepted






        It's a bit easier if we rephrase your conditions thus:





        • $f in A to B$ and $g in B to A$

        • for all $a in A$, $g(f(a)) = a$

        • for all $b in B$, $f(g(b)) = b$


        If the third condition holds, and we put $f(a)$ for $b$, then we get:
        $$
        f(g(f(a)) = f(a)
        $$

        If also $f$ is an injection (so that $f(x) = f(y)$ implies $x = y$), then we can "cancel" the $f$ on the two sides of the above equation giving:
        $$
        g(f(a)) = a
        $$

        which is the second condition.



        So if $f$ is an injection you don't need to check the second condition. (By a somewhat similar argument, if $g$ is a surjection, you don't need to check the third condition.)






        share|cite|improve this answer














        It's a bit easier if we rephrase your conditions thus:





        • $f in A to B$ and $g in B to A$

        • for all $a in A$, $g(f(a)) = a$

        • for all $b in B$, $f(g(b)) = b$


        If the third condition holds, and we put $f(a)$ for $b$, then we get:
        $$
        f(g(f(a)) = f(a)
        $$

        If also $f$ is an injection (so that $f(x) = f(y)$ implies $x = y$), then we can "cancel" the $f$ on the two sides of the above equation giving:
        $$
        g(f(a)) = a
        $$

        which is the second condition.



        So if $f$ is an injection you don't need to check the second condition. (By a somewhat similar argument, if $g$ is a surjection, you don't need to check the third condition.)







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited yesterday

























        answered yesterday









        Rob Arthan

        28.4k42865




        28.4k42865






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007024%2fsimplifying-a-proof-that-f-and-g-are-mutually-inverse-functions-knowing-that%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

            Berounka

            Sphinx de Gizeh

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...