Explicit Formula for Onto/Non-One-to-One Function

  • Thread starter Thread starter persian52
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explicit Formula
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster presents a problem involving the formulation of explicit functions from the natural numbers to the natural numbers, specifically focusing on functions that are onto but not one-to-one, and those that are neither one-to-one nor onto.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the definitions and implications of the functions proposed, particularly the use of the floor function and the inclusion of zero in the set of natural numbers. There are attempts to clarify the original poster's definitions and the correctness of the examples provided.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the definitions of natural numbers and the validity of the examples given. Some participants express confusion regarding the inclusion of zero and seek clarification on the terminology used.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of consensus on the definition of natural numbers, with some participants indicating that natural numbers may not include zero, while others assert that they do. This discrepancy affects the interpretation of the functions presented.

persian52
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Give an explicit formula for a function f : ℕ ⇒ ℕ that is

a) onto, but not one-to-one.
b) neither one-to-one nor onto.


1. The attempt at a solution
a) The formula f_{2}(n)= ⌊\frac{n}{3}⌋. it's onto cause f_{2}(3n)= n for every n. but, it's not one-to-one, cause f_{2}(1)= ⌊\frac{1}{3}⌋ = 0 = f_{2}(0)

b) f_{4}(n)=4 ⌊\frac{n}{4}⌋. This is not one-to-one, cause it's counterexample f_{4}(0) = f(1) = 0. Nor is it onto cause there is no odd number in the range of f_{4}
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
1/3 isn't equal to 0. You have to explain what f_2 means a lot better than that. Do you mean something like the floor function? Oh, I see you do. Guess I should wait till you finish posting.
 
Dick said:
1/3 isn't equal to 0. You have to explain what f_2 means a lot better than that. Do you mean something like the floor function? Oh, I see you do. Guess I should wait till you finish posting.

Sorry for that, it wasn't completed yet, now it's.
 
persian52 said:
Sorry for that, it wasn't completed yet, now it's.

Mmm. ##f_2(1)=0##. 0 isn't in N is it? You might have to modify it a bit.
 
Dick said:
Mmm. ##f_2(1)=0##. 0 isn't in N is it? You might have to modify it a bit.

natural numbers { 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

Yes it's.
 
persian52 said:
natural numbers { 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

Yes it's.
Not to me it isn't. In some places natural numbers do not include zero {1, 2, 3, ...}. We use another term, whole numbers, to indicate {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. Why is there no agreement on the definition of natural numbers I have no idea.
 
eumyang said:
Not to me it isn't. In some places natural numbers do not include zero {1, 2, 3, ...}. We use another term, whole numbers, to indicate {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. Why is there no agreement on the definition of natural numbers I have no idea.

i agree.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K