Composites of injections/surjections/bijections

  • Thread starter Thread starter ricardianequiva
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of composite functions involving arbitrary sets and functions, specifically focusing on the implications of injectivity and surjectivity in the context of bijective functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the conditions under which the injectivity of function g implies its surjectivity, questioning the necessity of additional information. There is also a comparison made to a different mathematical scenario to illustrate the need for clarity in assumptions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants clarifying the conditions of the problem and exploring the implications of bijective functions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the properties of bijections and their inverses, as well as the use of definitions to approach proofs.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of additional conditions on function g aside from its injectivity, which raises questions about the completeness of the problem setup.

ricardianequiva
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider arbitrary sets A, B, C and D with arbitrary functions:
f:A-->B, g:B-->C, h:C-->D. We define a composite function
h o g o f:A-->D.
Given that h, f, and h o g o f are bijective, and g is injective, show that g is also surjective (i.e. g is bijective).
This seems almost trivial to me, but my TA says that it requires proving.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand the question. Are there any conditions on g besides it being injective? You can always compose functions between sets like that, so that doesn't tell you anything.
 
No there aren't any other conditions.
 
Here's a similar question: Let x,y,z be integers, and define x+y+z. Show that if x and z are even, so is y. Do you see why you need more information? And what made you think it was trivial?
 
O I made a mistake in the question, we are given that h o g o f is bijective.
 
Ok, then use the fact that bijections have inverses, which are also bijections, and that the composition of bijections is a bijection.
 
got it, thanks!
 
One more question:
In our textbook we are given a theorem that:
If f o g is bijective then g is injective and f is surjective. I can informally see this by drawing Venn Diagrams, but how would one go about doing a formal proof.
 
Just go back to the definitions. For example, assume g wasn't injective. Then for some x,y, we'd have g(x)=g(y), and so f(g(x))=f(g(y)), and f o g isn't injective.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K