Proof regarding 1-1, and onto mappings

  • Thread starter Thread starter calvino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion addresses the existence of mappings from a set S to itself that are one-to-one (1-1) but not onto, and vice versa. The user demonstrates a mapping function g: S -> S, defined using an existing one-to-one mapping f: S -> T, which is onto but not one-to-one. The challenge presented is proving the converse: that an onto mapping from S to itself implies the existence of a one-to-one mapping that is not onto. The user seeks assistance in understanding the relationship between these mappings, particularly in relation to representative points or equivalent points.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and functions
  • Familiarity with one-to-one (1-1) and onto mappings
  • Knowledge of inverse functions
  • Concept of subsets and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of injective and surjective functions
  • Study the concept of inverse functions in set theory
  • Explore the implications of the Cantor-Bernstein-Schröder theorem
  • Learn about representative points in the context of set mappings
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying advanced set theory, particularly those interested in function properties and mappings.

calvino
Messages
108
Reaction score
0
Show that there exists a mapping from a set S to itself that is 1-1, but not onto IFF there exists a mapping from a set S to itself that is onto, but not 1-1.

Firstly i show it, assuming that the one-one mapping (but not onto) exists.

Now i know that if there is a funtion that is 1-1, but not onto, to define a mapping f on the set (call it S), to a subset of S (call it T). This is such that f: S -> T is one-one and onto. Next, I define a mapping g:S->S such that

g(x) = { f^-1(x), when x is an element of T
{ x, whenever x is an element of S\T

That is my mapping that is then onto, but not one-one.


However, I'm stuch on the converse. That is, how do i prove, assuming a mapping from S to itself that is onto, but not one-one, implies that there is a mapping that is one-one, but not onto. ANY HELP>?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does it have anything to do with representative points? (equivalent points).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K