Prove Inverse of Bijection function

In summary, the conversation discusses proving that the inverse of a bijection is also a bijection. The attempt at a solution involves showing that the inverse function is one-to-one and onto, using the definitions of bijection and inverse functions. However, there are some errors in the reasoning and the correct definitions are clarified.
  • #1
TheLegace
27
0

Homework Statement



Suppose f is bijection. Prove that f⁻¹. is bijection.

Homework Equations



A bijection of a function occurs when f is one to one and onto.
I think the proof would involve showing f⁻¹. is bijective, by showing f⁻¹ is onto, and one to one, since f is bijective it is invertible.

The Attempt at a Solution



To start:

Since f is invertible/bijective
f⁻¹ is one-to-one:
f:A→B
f⁻¹:B→A

f(a)=b then f⁻¹(b)=a
if f(a)=b f(a)=b' then b=b'
So f⁻¹ is one-to-one

f⁻¹ is onto:
*for f to be onto:
f:A→B
∀a∈A,∃b∈B f(a)=b
*
f⁻¹:B→A
∀b∈B,∃a∈A f(b)=a
So f⁻¹ is onto.

Therefore f⁻¹ is bijective.
Would this be correct?
Thank You Very Much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
TheLegace said:

Homework Statement



Suppose f is bijection. Prove that f⁻¹. is bijection.

Homework Equations



A bijection of a function occurs when f is one to one and onto.
I think the proof would involve showing f⁻¹. is bijective, by showing f⁻¹ is onto, and one to one, since f is bijective it is invertible.

The Attempt at a Solution



To start:

Since f is invertible/bijective
f⁻¹ is one-to-one:
f:A→B
f⁻¹:B→A

f(a)=b then f⁻¹(b)=a
if f(a)=b f(a)=b' then b=b'
So f⁻¹ is one-to-one
Yes, if f(a)= b and f(a)= b' then b= b'. But that is true of any function, not just one-to-one functions so it does NOT show that f-1 is one-to-one. You need to start from "if f-1(a)= f-1(b)" and finish "therefore a= b". I would recommend taking f of both sides.

f⁻¹ is onto:
*for f to be onto:
f:A→B
∀a∈A,∃b∈B f(a)=b
*
f⁻¹:B→A
∀b∈B,∃a∈A f(b)=a
So f⁻¹ is onto.
There are some "special" symbols in there I can't see but I think you are saying [itex]\all b\in B, \exist a in A f(b)= a[/itex]. Again, that is true of any function from B to A and has nothing to do with "onto". You need to start "If [itex]a\in A[/itex]" and end "therefore [itex]\exist b\in B[/itex] such that f-1(b)= a". That is, you have to start with a member of A and find a member of B so that is true. There is an obvious way to do that.

Therefore f⁻¹ is bijective.
Would this be correct?
Thank You Very Much.
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, if f(a)= b and f(a)= b' then b= b'. But that is true of any function, not just one-to-one functions so it does NOT show that f-1 is one-to-one. You need to start from "if f-1(a)= f-1(b)" and finish "therefore a= b". I would recommend taking f of both sides.

f⁻¹ is onto:
*for f to be onto:
f:A→B
∀a∈A,∃b∈B f(a)=b
*
f⁻¹:B→A
∀b∈B,∃a∈A f(b)=a
So f⁻¹ is onto.
There are some "special" symbols in there I can't see but I think you are saying [itex]\all b\in B, \exist a in A f(b)= a[/itex]. Again, that is true of any function from B to A and has nothing to do with "onto". You need to start "If [itex]a\in A[/itex]" and end "therefore [itex]\exist b\in B[/itex] such that f-1(b)= a". That is, you have to start with a member of A and find a member of B so that is true. There is an obvious way to do that.

The way onto is defined in my text and class is through quantification. For f, for every a in set A, there is some b in set B such that f(a)=b.
For the inverse for every b in B there is an element a in A, which defines the mapping of onto function.

Thank you for the input, I appreciate it.

TheLegace.
 
  • #4
I very much doubt that the book you use defines a surjection like that, but if it does it's simply wrong. The definition of a surjection is that [itex]\forall b \in B \;\; \exists a \in A , \text{such that} f(a)=b[/itex]. In words this means that a function's values span its whole codomain.

Example:
[tex]
f:[0,1] \rightarrow \{1,0\}, f(x)=1
[/tex]

Using your definition of a surjection would allow you to conclude that this function, f, is a surjection. Seeing as for all values of [itex]x \in [0,1] [/itex] there is an [itex]y \in \{0,1\}[/itex] namely 1. Yet 0 never is reached for any [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] thus it cannot be a surjection.
Now let's use the correct definition of a surjection. For [itex]y=1[/itex] there is always an [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] such that [itex]f(x)=1[/itex], namely all values within [0,1]. But for y=0 there is not a single value for [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] such that f(x)=0. So there exist an [itex]y \in \{0,1\}[/itex] such that [itex]f(x) \neq y[/itex], namely y=0. Therefore this function is not a surjection.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Cyosis said:
I very much doubt that the book you use defines a surjection like that, but if it does it's simply wrong. The definition of a surjection is that [itex]\forall b \in B \;\; \exists a \in A , \text{such that} f(a)=b[/itex]. In words this means that a function's values span its whole codomain.

Example:
[tex]
f:[0,1] \rightarrow \{1,0\}, f(x)=1
[/tex]

Using your definition of a surjection would allow you to conclude that this function, f, is a surjection. Seeing as for all values of [itex]x \in [0,1] [/itex] there is an [itex]y \in \{0,1\}[/itex] namely 1. Yet 0 never is reached for any [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] thus it cannot be a surjection.
Now let's use the correct definition of a surjection. For [itex]y=1[/itex] there is always an [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] such that [itex]f(x)=1[/itex], namely all values within [0,1]. But for y=0 there is not a single value for [itex]x \in [0,1][/itex] such that f(x)=0. So there exist an [itex]y \in \{0,1\}[/itex] such that [itex]f(x) \neq y[/itex], namely y=0. Therefore this function is not a surjection.

Oh my apologies I made a mistake, you are right, I am working on some inverse function stuff and typing functions gets me confused very easily. But thank you.
 

1. What is a bijection function?

A bijection function is a type of function in mathematics that maps every element in one set to a unique element in another set, and vice versa. In simpler terms, it is a one-to-one and onto function.

2. What does it mean to prove the inverse of a bijection function?

Proving the inverse of a bijection function means showing that a function has an inverse function that undoes the original function. In other words, if a function f maps an element x to an element y, the inverse function f^-1 maps y back to x.

3. How do you prove the inverse of a bijection function?

To prove the inverse of a bijection function, you need to show that the function is both one-to-one and onto. This can be done by using the definition of a bijection function and showing that for every element in the codomain, there is a unique element in the domain that maps to it.

4. Why is it important to prove the inverse of a bijection function?

Proving the inverse of a bijection function is important because it ensures that the function is well-defined and has a unique inverse. This is crucial in many areas of mathematics, such as in solving equations and working with functions that have inverse relationships.

5. Can a function have an inverse if it is not a bijection?

No, a function must be a bijection to have an inverse. If a function is not one-to-one and onto, it may not have a unique inverse or may not have an inverse at all. In such cases, it is not possible to prove the inverse of the function.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
457
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
461
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
503
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
222
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
171
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
935
Back
Top