Invert a triple composite function p(q(r(x)))

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around inverting a composite function represented as p(q(r(x))) using bijective functions. Participants explore the relationships between functions f, g, h_0, and h_1, particularly focusing on how to express g in terms of f and the inverses of h functions. There is a debate on the justification of manipulating equal functions and whether existing materials can provide a formal proof of the procedure. Suggestions include defining two functions A(x) and B(x) to demonstrate their equivalence through their domains and ranges. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in notation and the importance of rigorous proof in mathematical discussions.
infk
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hey,
Let ##(f,g) \in B^A## where ##A## and ##B## are non-empty sets, ##B^A## denotes the set of bijective functions between ##A## and ##B##.
We assume that there exists ##h_0: A \rightarrow A## and ##h_1: B \rightarrow B## such that ##f = h_1 \circ g \circ h_0 ##.
This implies that ##g = h^{-1}_1 \circ f \circ h^{-1}_0##, according to my teacher, but why is that?
We have that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h^{-1}_0 ##, but how do I proceed from that?

I have drawn a graph with sets and arrows representing functions such that going from ##A## to ##B## via ##h_0##, ##g## and ##h_1## is the same as going from ##A## to ##B## via ##f##. I then manipulated this graph a little while maintaining the proper relations between the sets, which showed that going from ##A## to ##B## via ##g## is the same as going through (in order) ##h^{-1}_0##, ##f## and ##h^{-1}_1##, but this is hardly a proof at all.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
infk said:
We have that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h^{-1}_0 ##, but how do I proceed from that?

Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h(x) = h(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h^{-1}( f ( h(x)) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.


Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?

A knockdown-drag-out roof could begin: "Consider the two functions A(x) = h^{-1}f( h(x)) and B(x) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) ."

If A(x) = y then show that x = h((f^{-1}(h^{-1}(x)). Use that expression for x to show that B(x) = y also. In a similar manner show that if B(x) = y then A(x) = y. Argue that A(x) and B(x) have the same domain and range. Thus they are identical functions.

.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h(x) = h(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h^{-1}( f ( h(x)) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?

A knockdown-drag-out roof could begin: "Consider the two functions A(x) = h^{-1}f( h(x)) and B(x) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) ."

If A(x) = y then show that x = h((f^{-1}(h^{-1}(x)). Use that expression for x to show that B(x) = y also. In a similar manner show that if B(x) = y then A(x) = y. Argue that A(x) and B(x) have the same domain and range. Thus they are identical functions.

.
Hi and thanks for the response. What I meant was of course that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h_0##, it seems though that you did not notice my typo. Also, could you use subscript notation, it is not clear which of ##h_1## and ##h_2## you mean. Cheers
 
Last edited:
Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h_0^{-1}(x) = h_0^{-1}(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h_1^{-1}( f ( h_0^{-1}(x)) = g(h_0(h_0^{-1}(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.

Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
636
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top