Determine whether it is an onto function

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwxie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining whether the functions g(x) = x^2 + x and g(x) = x^3 are onto functions. It is established that g(x) = x^2 + x is not onto because its range is limited to values greater than or equal to -1, meaning negative numbers like -1 cannot be produced. In contrast, g(x) = x^3 is confirmed to be onto since for any real number r, there exists a real number x (the cubic root of r) such that g(x) equals r, demonstrating that all real numbers can be achieved. The Intermediate Value Theorem is referenced to support the continuity and surjectiveness of the cubic function. Overall, the discussion clarifies the conditions under which these functions can be classified as onto or not.
jwxie
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
If it is not an onto function, provide the range.

I have problems with these two

g: R -> R
g(x) = x^2 + x
g(x) = x^3

The book said g1 is neither onto nor 1-1, while g2 is both

I see how x^2 + x is not `1-1 function. But how come it is not onto? I mean R is real number, can be 343.3434534564656757 or 67.23123132 or anything that is real number. How can we quickly show that x^2 + x is not onto? There are -inf, inf real numbers, so how can we say there is a particular g(x) left out?
One way I see is if x^2 + x = 0 and we get x = sqrt(-x) which is an i num

I see x^3 is a 1-1 because x1 = x2. in a similar way as in the case of g1, how can we be so sure that all real numbers can be produce?

In the book, things like x^3 its surjectiveness can be proven as following
x^3 and if r is any real number in codomain of f, then real number cubic root of r is in the domain of f and since f(cubic root of r) = (cubic root of r)^3 = r, so f = R = range of f, so it is onto (copied from book)

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
x^2+x=(x+\frac{1}{2})^2-\frac{1}{4}, so g_1(x)>=-\frac{1}{4}. So, for example, -1 is not in g_1(\mathbb{R}).
 
As for the second you if y is any real number then we can find x0 and x1 with x03<y<x13 (not difficult to prove - I'll leave the details to you).

The existence of some real number x such that x3=y then follows from the intermediate value theorem.

You probably need to find a proof of the IVP - try wiki.

PS. You also need to prove x3 is continuous.
 
Last edited:
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K