Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Clarifying some mapping stuff

  1. Nov 5, 2012 #1

    Zondrina

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    So I want to clarify if what I'm thinking is correct.

    Suppose we have a mapping f : A → B and we have a in A and b in B.

    If f is an injective map, then f(a) = f(b) implies that a = b or conversely a≠b implies f(a)≠f(b).

    If f is a surjective map, then for b in B, there exists an a in A such that f(a) = b.

    If A = B then f is a homomorphism from A to B if it is operation preserving. That is f(ab) = f(a)f(b) for all a and b in A.

    If f is both injective, surjective, and operation preserving, then it is a bijective homomorphism, also known as an isomorphism, and thus has an inverse f-1 : B → A.

    If f is an injective homomorphism, it is called a monomorphism.

    If f is a surjective homomorphism, it is called an epimorphism.

    If A = B and f is a homomorphism, then it is called and endomorphism.

    Also a bijective endomorphism is an automorphism.

    I'm hoping that those are correct ^
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 5, 2012 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Correct.

    It depends. What are A and B?? Are they groups? rings? modules?? You should say that. If A and B are groups, then your definition is correct. But we usually call that a group homomorphism (although we use homomorphism when the structure of group is understood).
    Also, I see no reason why we should take A=B.

    That is all correct.
     
  4. Nov 5, 2012 #3

    Zondrina

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes I intended for A and B to be groups. The only reason I took A = B is to imply that f was mapping from a group to itself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  5. Nov 5, 2012 #4

    Zondrina

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Out of curiosity, is a bijection sufficient for an inverse or must the map also be a homomorphism for an inverse to happen.
     
  6. Nov 5, 2012 #5

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Being bijective is equivalent to the existence of an inverse. So yes, it is sufficient.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Clarifying some mapping stuff
  1. Mapping Question (Replies: 1)

  2. Multilinear Maps (Replies: 3)

  3. Injective Mapping (Replies: 3)

  4. Conformal map (Replies: 1)

Loading...