Injection from finite set to equally sized set is surjection

In summary: Since g is a surjective function, it must have a unique inverse. That inverse is given byg^{-1}(x)=g(y)^{-1}So, given any two points in S, there is a unique inverse function to g that takes them to their respective corresponding points in T.
  • #1
Bipolarity
776
2
This is a rather simple question, so it has been rattling my brain recently.
Consider a surjective map ## f : S \rightarrow T ## where both ## S ## and ## T ## are finite sets of equal cardinality. Then is ## f ## necessarily injective? I proved the converse, which turned out to be quite trivial, but this is giving me some trouble indeed. Any initial thoughts on whether it's true (pretty sure it is true!) and how I might go about proving it?

Thanks!

BiP
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bipolarity said:
This is a rather simple question, so it has been rattling my brain recently.
Consider an injective map ## f : S \rightarrow T ## where both ## S ## and ## T ## are finite sets of equal cardinality. Then is ## f ## necessarily surjective? I proved the converse, which turned out to be quite trivial, but this is giving me some trouble indeed. Any initial thoughts on whether it's true (pretty sure it is true!) and how I might go about proving it?

Thanks!

BiP

The truth of this is actually the basis for counting!
 
  • #3
For an overkill, try inclusion/exclusion . Still, an issue with this question is the set of starting definitions.
My working definition is that, for finite sets S,T , they have the same cardinality iff there is a bijection between them.
What is yours, OP?
 
  • #4
P.S. Slight mistake, I meant to prove that surjection implies injection, not the other way around.

I agree with the definition that two sets have equal cardinality if a bijection exists between them. But how does that prove that every surjection from ## S ## to ## T ## is also a bijection?

So far, it is clear that ## |S| = |f(S)| ## since ## f ## is a surjection. But what next?
 
  • #5
Bipolarity said:
P.S. Slight mistake, I meant to prove that surjection implies injection, not the other way around.

I agree with the definition that two sets have equal cardinality if a bijection exists between them. But how does that prove that every surjection from ## S ## to ## T ## is also a bijection?

So far, it is clear that ## |S| = |f(S)| ## since ## f ## is a surjection. But what next?

Imagine there are 30 students in a class and 30 desks. Where the students sit is a mapping from the set of students to the set of desks.

If every desk is occupied (surjection) then every desk must have only one student (injection). How could there be two students sharing a desk unless one desk is unoccupied?

This is simply counting, surely?
 
  • #6
Bipolarity said:
P.S. Slight mistake, I meant to prove that surjection implies injection, not the other way around.

I agree with the definition that two sets have equal cardinality if a bijection exists between them. But how does that prove that every surjection from ## S ## to ## T ## is also a bijection?

So far, it is clear that ## |S| = |f(S)| ## since ## f ## is a surjection. But what next?

You don't like the inclusion/exclusion argument? It is high-powered, but I think it does the job: what is the size of f(S): it is ## |S|-| t \in T : t= f(s_k)=f(s_j), s_j, s_k \in S, s_j \neq s_j |+ |t \in T: t=f(s_j)=f(s_k)=f(s_t): s_j \neq s_k , s_j \neq s_t |+... ##

i.e., |f(S)\= size of S minus the number of elements of T that are "hit" twice +.. number. of elemets hit 3 times - ...
 
  • #7
WWGD said:
You don't like the inclusion/exclusion argument? It is high-powered, but I think it does the job: what is the size of f(S): it is ## |S|-| t \in T : t= f(s_k)=f(s_j), s_j, s_k \in S, s_j \neq s_j |+ |t \in T: t=f(s_j)=f(s_k)=f(s_t): s_j \neq s_k , s_j \neq s_t |+... ##

i.e., |f(S)\= size of S minus the number of elements of T that are "hit" twice +.. number. of elemets hit 3 times - ...
One issue with this is that is I can't imagine the same person asking the question and understanding your answer. Can you ?
 
  • #8
wabbit said:
One issue with this is that is I can't imagine the same person asking the question and understanding your answer.
Yes, it is too high tech for the situation, but I can't think of anything else at this point.
 
  • #9
The easiest way as suggested by PeroK is just counting. But if we want an abstract version with no counting, that can be applied as soon as we define "finite set" etc, maybe the following :

Since S and T have the same cardinality, there is a bijection ##\phi: T \rightarrow S##. Let's use that and set ##g=\phi\circ f##.

(1) g is a surjective function from S onto itself.

Now assume f is not injective so that there exist ##x\neq y, g(x)=g(y)##, and consider the restriction h of g to ##S-\{x\}##

(2) h has the same image as g.

So h is a surjective function from a strict subset of S onto S.

(3) This means that S is infinite.

OP should check (1), (2), and (3)

Actually (3) is kinda cheating, I am assuming that is the definition given for a finite set. If a different definition is used, proving (3) may or may not be easy. @Bipolarity, what is your definition of a finite set?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Let ##|S| = |T| = n \ (n \ge 1) ## and ##f:S \ \rightarrow \ T##

Proposition: ##f## is a surjection iff it is an injection.

Let ##S = \lbrace s_1 \dots s_n \rbrace## and ##T = \lbrace t_1 \dots t_n \rbrace##

You can do this from the definition of a finite set of order ##n##

Assume ##f## is a surjection but not a injection. ##\exists i \ne j## such that ##f(s_i) = f(s_j)##

Now the restriction of ##f: S-s_j \ \rightarrow T ## is a surjection, hence ##|T| \le n-1##, which is a contradiction.

Assume ##f## is an injection but not a surjection. ##\exists i## such that ##t_i## is not mapped to by ##f##

Hence ##f## is an injection from ##S## to ##T-t_i## and ##|S| \le n-1## which is also a contradiction.
 
  • #11
I think you can find a surjective map that is not an injection (in fact i cheat on the word map):

Let S={a,b} T={1,2}

Pose f(a)=1 f(b)={1,2} a multivalued map it is clearly surjective but not injective since one image of b is the same as of a.
 
  • #12
jk22 said:
I think you can find a surjective map that is not an injection (in fact i cheat on the word map):

Let S={a,b} T={1,2}

Pose f(a)=1 f(b)={1,2} a multivalued map it is clearly surjective but not injective since one image of b is the same as of a.

No. This is not a map from S to T but from S to something else - you did not define it but whatever you choose must be a set X such that ##\{1,\{1,2\}\}\subset X##.

It is clearly injective in any case since ##f(a)\neq f(b)##, in fact ##f(a)\in f(b) ##. It may or may not be surjective depending on what target space you decide upon.
 
  • #13
Yes the notation is not good but we can clearly see in a Venn diagram. Maybe if we write f(b)=1,2 ?
 
  • #14
Not quite, f(b)=1,2 doesn't mean much. You can define multivalued functions but they are not functions from S to T here but functions from S to 2^T. Of course you can define a notion of "multivalued surjectivity" too and derive its properties, but since this doesn't have a lot to do with the topic of this thread, perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate.
 

1. What is an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set?

An injection from a finite set to an equally sized set is a function that maps each element of the finite set to a unique element of the equally sized set. This means that there are no repeated elements in the equally sized set and every element in the finite set is mapped to a distinct element in the equally sized set.

2. How is an injection different from a surjection?

An injection is a function that maps each element of the domain to a unique element in the codomain, while a surjection is a function that maps every element in the codomain to at least one element in the domain. In other words, an injection is a one-to-one mapping, while a surjection is an onto mapping.

3. Can an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set be a surjection as well?

Yes, it is possible for an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set to also be a surjection. This would mean that the function is both one-to-one and onto. In this case, the function would be a bijection.

4. How do you prove that an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set is a surjection?

To prove that an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set is a surjection, you would need to show that every element in the codomain is mapped to by at least one element in the domain. This can be done by using a proof by contradiction, assuming that there is an element in the codomain that is not mapped to by any element in the domain and showing that this leads to a contradiction.

5. What is the significance of an injection from a finite set to an equally sized set being a surjection?

An injection from a finite set to an equally sized set being a surjection means that every element in the codomain is being used, or "hit", by the function. This can be useful in many applications, such as creating bijective mappings between sets, which have important properties in fields like cryptography and data compression.

Similar threads

  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
507
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
13K
Back
Top