Function: Prove it is 1-to-1, Onto, and find Inverse

  • Thread starter Thread starter rooski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Inverse
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a piecewise function defined on the real numbers, specifically focusing on proving that the function is one-to-one, onto, and finding its inverse. Participants explore the challenges of working with piecewise functions in the context of a homework problem.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to prove that the function is one-to-one, questioning the adequacy of the textbook's approach.
  • Another participant suggests starting with two different values and proving that their function outputs differ, proposing specific cases to consider.
  • There is a discussion about the manipulation of the function's equations, with one participant confused about how to proceed with the proof.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the condition b != ac in their proofs, indicating its importance in establishing the function's properties.
  • One participant mentions having made progress on one case but feels stuck on another, indicating the complexity of the problem.
  • There are multiple references to needing to show that certain expressions cannot be equal, with participants debating the best approach to demonstrate this.
  • Some participants express a desire for clarification or further guidance on specific steps in the proof process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to break the problem into cases to analyze the function's properties, but there is no consensus on the specific methods or steps to take in the proofs. The discussion remains unresolved with various approaches being considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion regarding the manipulation of piecewise functions and the implications of the conditions set in the problem. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions that could affect the proofs being discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students working on similar problems involving piecewise functions and those seeking to understand the nuances of proving function properties such as one-to-one and onto.

rooski
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




Let a,b,c E R with b != ac and let the function f : R --> R be given by

f(x) = a if x = c
f(x) = (ax - b) / (x - c) if x != c


Show that f(x) is one-to-one
Show that f(x) is onto
Show the inverse of f(x)



The Attempt at a Solution



I don't want anyone to solve this for me, i just need a push in the right direction. My textbook is next to useless. There are no similar examples showing how to work with piecewise functions.

The one thing my book shows is that we take 2 arbitrary variables and prove that f(v1) and f(v2) have differing values in the domain and range.

How can you even conclude that a function is one-to-one with such a weak proof though? Especially complex piecewise functions like mine.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rooski said:

Homework Statement




Let a,b,c E R with b != ac and let the function f : R --> R be given by

f(x) = a if x = c
f(x) = (ax - b) / (x - c) if x != c


Show that f(x) is one-to-one
Show that f(x) is onto
Show the inverse of f(x)



The Attempt at a Solution



I don't want anyone to solve this for me, i just need a push in the right direction. My textbook is next to useless. There are no similar examples showing how to work with piecewise functions.

The one thing my book shows is that we take 2 arbitrary variables and prove that f(v1) and f(v2) have differing values in the domain and range.
Your book should have a better definition of one-to-one than this - something like f(x1) = f(x2) ==> x1 = x2. (I switched from your v1 and v2 to x1 and x2.)

This is equivalent to x1 [itex]\neq[/itex] x2 ==> f(x1) [itex]\neq[/itex] f(x2).

Start with two different x values, x1 and x2, and show that f(x1) [itex]\neq[/itex] f(x2). Since you have a piecewise defined function, I think you'll need two different cases:
1. x1 = c, x2 [itex]\neq[/itex] c
2. x1 [itex]\neq[/itex] c, and x2 [itex]\neq[/itex] c, with x1 and x2 being different.

I don't think you need a third case, with x1 [itex]\neq[/itex] c, and x2 = c, since that would be covered by case 1.

That's how I would start out.

rooski said:
How can you even conclude that a function is one-to-one with such a weak proof though? Especially complex piecewise functions like mine.
 
Okay with those cases in mind I'll start at Case 1.

f(x1) = f(x2) translates to a = (ax-b)/(x-c)

Right?

I am confused because in my notes, they essentially whittle the equation down until it shows x1 = x2, but only one side of my equation has x in it.
 
Last edited:
rooski said:
Okay with those cases in mind I'll start at Case 1.

f(x1) = f(x2) translates to a = (ax-b)/(x-c)

Right?
You're going at it the opposite way that I suggested, which was to show that, if x1 != x2, then f(x1) != f(x2).
rooski said:
I am confused because in my notes, they essentially whittle the equation down until it shows x1 = x2, but only one side of my equation has x in it.
 
Oh sorry. So i want to aim to prove that a != (ax-b)/(x-c)...

Isn't that already painfully obvious, just from looking at it though? Is there any simplifying needed for this?
 
Just looking at it wouldn't be enough. Since it's so obvious, it should be easy to show that if x1 != x2 (and as in case 1), then f(x1) != f(x2). After evaluating f(x2) the resulting expression should involve x2.
 
I kind of shuffled case 1 to the side - i don't exactly know how to go about doing it. I got some progress on Case 2.

-snip, error-
 
Last edited:
rooski said:
So what i did now was firstly remove c from the bottom
What's your justification for doing that?
 
-EDIT-

i figured out Case 2.

I'm stuck on case 1 though.

a != (ax-b)/(x-c)

Since this is an inequality, what manipulations can i do? Can i move a to the right hand side? I want to eventually prove that both sides can never have the same value, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Alright i finished the question, thanks for the help all.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
rooski said:
Alright i finished the question, thanks for the help all.

What was the answer? I am trying to work on the exact same question and I am totally confused.
 
  • #12
To find if it is 1-to-1 you must break it into 2 cases, which i discussed earlier.

The trick is to use the fact that b-ac != 0 in order to show x1 = x2.

To show the function is onto, you examine both cases again. Case 1 is simple, and Case 2 you must solve in terms of x (invert it so that you get x = equation with y in it).
 
  • #13
rooski said:
To find if it is 1-to-1 you must break it into 2 cases, which i discussed earlier.

The trick is to use the fact that b-ac != 0 in order to show x1 = x2.

To show the function is onto, you examine both cases again. Case 1 is simple, and Case 2 you must solve in terms of x (invert it so that you get x = equation with y in it).

im still lost, can you give me a little more info to help push me in the right direction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
994
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K