Proving the One-to-One Property of Function Composition

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RW Techs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the composition of two one-to-one functions, f and g, is one-to-one. Participants explore definitions, logical structures, and clarity in proofs, focusing on the implications of function properties and the nature of uniqueness in function mappings.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • RW Techs requests assistance in proving that the composition of two one-to-one functions is one-to-one.
  • One participant asserts that the proof is straightforward, stating that f(g(x)) is one-to-one if f is one-to-one, based on the uniqueness of g(x).
  • Another participant challenges the clarity of the proof, suggesting that the reliance on the uniqueness of g(x) is insufficient and could apply to any function.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the need for a clearer logical structure, proposing that the proof should explicitly show the implications of f(x)=f(y) leading to x=y and g(u)=g(v) leading to u=v.
  • Concerns are raised about the phrasing "there exists a unique" in the proof, with some participants expressing discomfort with this quantification in logical terms.
  • One participant corrects a previous statement regarding the uniqueness of mappings, clarifying that for each u in the range of g, there is a unique x such that g(x)=u.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the clarity and validity of the proof presented. While some find the proof straightforward, others challenge its assumptions and logical structure, indicating that no consensus has been reached regarding the best approach to the proof.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions of one-to-one functions and the implications of uniqueness in function mappings. The discussion highlights varying interpretations of logical quantification in mathematical proofs.

RW Techs
Hi, if anyone could help me with the following question, that'd be great. Thanks in advance =)

Show that the composition of two one-to-one functions, f and g, is one-to-one.

Thank you,

RW Techs
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, I find it hard to believe you have thought about the question, it is very easy.

The composition of the functions is f(g(x)). We know for each x there exists a unique u such that g(x) = u. So f(g(x)) is one to one iff f(u) is one to one, which it is, by assumption.

Transform this into symbolic logic and you have a proof good enough for an analysis class in which you prove things that are already obviously true.
 
start with the definition of one one. i.e. h is one one if whenever x and y are different, thenm also h(x) and h(y) are different...
 
Crosson said:
Hmm, I find it hard to believe you have thought about the question, it is very easy.

The composition of the functions is f(g(x)). We know for each x there exists a unique u such that g(x) = u. So f(g(x)) is one to one iff f(u) is one to one, which it is, by assumption.

Transform this into symbolic logic and you have a proof good enough for an analysis class in which you prove things that are already obviously true.


It appears to me that your proof relies on nothing more than the fact that g is a function. g(x) could be any function, and the "proof" still "works".
 
"We know for each x there exists a unique u such that g(x) = u"

That won't work for each function.

Equivalent, but maybe easier to see:
You are given that:
[tex]f(x)=f(y) \Rightarrow x=y[/tex]
and
[tex]g(u)=g(v) \Rightarrow u=v[/tex]
for all x,y in the domain of f and u,v in the domain of g.
You need to show that:

[tex]f(g(u))=f(g(v)) \Rightarrow u=v[/tex]

for all u,v in the domain of g.
 
Last edited:
I think crankfan was pointing out that that answer wasn't very clear in its proof. I for one can't stand the "there is a unique" part of it. If you should be of the desire to quantify "there is unique" in logical symbols as pressed by that answer, then you're on hiding to nothing.

Your proof using the f(x)=f(y) => x=y is much clearer.
 
Maybe I was quibbling. I think it's the quantification that I didn't like.

An ordinary function has a unique u in the range associated
with each each x in the domain.

But yes, Galileo's proof is much cleaner.
 
Galileo said:
"We know for each x there exists a unique u such that g(x) = u"

That won't work for each function.
Whoopsie, that should be the other way around anyway:
For each u in the range of g there is an unique x, such that g(x)=u.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 139 ·
5
Replies
139
Views
12K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K