Discovering Surjective and Non-Injective Functions in Function Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter philosophking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Theory
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on identifying functions from the natural numbers to themselves that exhibit specific properties: surjective but not injective, and neither surjective nor injective. Examples provided include f(n) = n as bijective, f(n) = 2n as injective but not surjective, and f(n) = floor(n/2) as surjective but not injective. Additionally, constant functions are noted as neither injective nor surjective. The user expresses confusion but ultimately clarifies their understanding of these concepts through examples.
philosophking
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Please help me. I'm trying to find functions where f:N-->N (the set of natural numbers to the set of natural numbers), such that:

f is surjective but not injective,
f is neither surjective nor injective

I'm really not sure how to determine these. Thanks for your consideration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
errr... now that I look back at my other answers ( i had to find one that is bijective and one that is not surjective but injective), i don't even know if those are right.

For bijective, could you have f(n) = n ?
For injective but not surjective, could you have f(n) = 2n + 1 ?

I'm so confused.
 
OK hehe i think i figured some stuff out, for my first original question, f(n) = (n-5) + 2 works. But I still need help on my last question! please!

Also, the most recent two questions i asked can be disregarded... haha wow sorry if i confused anyone
 
f: N -> N

If f(n) = n, f is bijective.
If f(n) = 2n, f is injective but not surjective (2n+1 also works).
If f(n) = floor(n/2), f is surjective but not injective.
If f(n) = constant, f is neither injective nor surjective.

I think these are all pretty well-known examples.
 
thanks, much appreciated
 
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 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K