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?
functions inverse-function
add a comment |
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?
functions inverse-function
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
add a comment |
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?
functions inverse-function
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
functions inverse-function
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
add a comment |
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.)
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.)
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Rob Arthan
28.4k42865
28.4k42865
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%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
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
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