Does the Definition of an Inverse Depend on Injectivity and Surjectivity?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bipolarity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 replies · 2K views
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
Consider a function [itex]f(x)[/itex] and its inverse [itex]g(x)[/itex].

Then [itex](f \circ g)(x) = x[/itex] and [itex](g \circ f)(x) = x[/itex]

Are both these statements separate requirements in order for the inverse to be defined? Is it possible that one of the above statements is true but not the other? If so, could I see an example of such a case?

Otherwise, could you prove one having knowledge of the other?

Thanks!

BiP
 
on Phys.org
do you know what injective and surjective functions are? every injective g has an f with the first property, but only surjective g's have an f with the second property.

e.g. if g is multiplication by 2, as a map from the integers to themselves, then there is an f with property 1. namely f sends every even integer to half itself, and sends every odd integer to zero.