Thoughts on this Inverse Bijection Proof


by blindgibson27
Tags: bijection, function, inverse
blindgibson27
blindgibson27 is offline
#1
Jan20-13, 09:31 PM
P: 7


Is this sufficient?
Attached Thumbnails
Bijection Proof.png  
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Number Nine
Number Nine is online now
#2
Jan20-13, 09:54 PM
P: 771
What are you trying to prove, exactly? These just look like definitions to me, in which case a much simpler description of a one-to-one function would be as follows: A function [itex]f:X \rightarrow Y[/itex] is an injection if, [itex]\forall a,b \in X, \ f(a) = f(b) \implies a = b[/itex].
blindgibson27
blindgibson27 is offline
#3
Jan21-13, 07:31 AM
P: 7
It is to proof that the inverse is a one-to-one correspondence. I think I get what you are saying though about it looking as a definition rather than a proof.

How about this..

Let [itex]f:X\rightarrow Y[/itex] be a one to one correspondence, show [itex]f^{-1}:Y\rightarrow X[/itex] is a one to one correspondence.

[itex] \exists x_{1},x_{2} \in X \mid f(x_{1}) = f(x_{2}) \Leftrightarrow x_{1}=x_{2} [/itex]

furthermore, [itex]f^{-1}(f(x_{1})) = f^{-1}(f(x_{2})) \Rightarrow f^{-1}(x_{1}) = f^{-1}(x_{1})[/itex] (by definition of function [itex]f[/itex] and one to one)

kind of stumped from this point on..
I may want to transfer this post over to the hw section though, I did post to just get a confirmation on my thoughts on bijection but it is now turning into something a bit more specific than that

HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is offline
#4
Jan21-13, 09:14 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,896

Thoughts on this Inverse Bijection Proof


Your proof that [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is injective is correct. Your proof that it is surjective does not look to me like it actually says anything!

You want to prove that, if [itex]x\in X[/itex] then there exist [itex]y\in Y[/itex] such that [itex]f^{-1}(y)= x[/itex].

Given [itex]x\in X[/itex], let [itex]y= f(x)[/itex]. Then it follows that [itex]f^{-1}(y)= f^{-1}(f(x))= x[/itex].
blindgibson27
blindgibson27 is offline
#5
Jan21-13, 12:01 PM
P: 7
That makes a lot of sense and I am following that thought process, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was just stumped on the direction of the onto.
blindgibson27
blindgibson27 is offline
#6
Jan21-13, 12:58 PM
P: 7
In the same light, these are my thoughts on my next exercise. If I have this wrong I may need to solidify my idea on the concept a bit more.

It reads: Show that if [itex]f:X \rightarrow Y[/itex] is onto [itex]Y[/itex], and [itex]g: Y \rightarrow Z[/itex] is onto [itex]Z[/itex], then [itex]g \circ f:X \rightarrow Z[/itex] is onto [itex]Z[/itex]


Prf
Given [itex]y \in Y[/itex], let [itex]y = g^{-1}(z)[/itex] and [itex] x = f^{-1}(y)[/itex]
[itex]\forall z \in Z [/itex], [itex]f^{-1}(g^{-1}(z)) = f^{-1}(y) = x[/itex]


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Bijection Proof Calculus & Beyond Homework 15
Function must be a bijection for its inverse to exist? Calculus 8
Prove Inverse of Bijection function Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
inverse of continuous bijection Differential Geometry 10
Proof of Bijection Precalculus Mathematics Homework 3