MHB Find g: Solving a Set Theory Problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding a function g from the set {0,1} to B\A, ensuring that f^-1(g(x)) = x + 2 for x in {0,1}. Participants clarify that B\A consists of the elements {∅, 1, {2}} and that f is a bijection from A to B\A. There is confusion regarding how to appropriately match values since g cannot be a bijection. Additionally, the conversation touches on the concept of surjectivity in relation to Cartesian products and power sets, emphasizing that a surjective function requires every element in the codomain to be mapped from the domain. The thread concludes with participants grappling with the complexities of set theory and function mappings.
FallArk
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Find a function g from {0,1} to B\A such that f^-1(g(x)) = x +2 for x∈{0,1}. Present it in the 2-row form.
A = {{1},2,3} and B = {∅,1,{2},3}
I know that B\A = {∅,1,{2}} and f is a bijection from A to B\A
how do I find such function g? It obviously can't be bijection, how do I match one value to another?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured it out, i just have to trace it using the function given to find for x=0 and 1 what is the corresponding values using the two row representation of f
 
FallArk said:
Find a function g from {0,1} to B\A such that f^-1(g(x)) = x +2 for x∈{0,1}. Present it in the 2-row form.
A = {{1},2,3} and B = {∅,1,{2},3}
I know that B\A = {∅,1,{2}} and f is a bijection from A to B\A
how do I find such function g? It obviously can't be bijection, how do I match one value to another?

Given A X (A∩B) = { ({1},3), (2,3), (3,3) }, and P(A)\B={ {1}, 2, {{1},2}, {{1},3}, {2,3}, {{1},2,3} }
does there exist a surjection from A X (A∩B) to P(A)\B?
 
FallArk said:
Find a function g from {0,1} to B\A such that f^-1(g(x)) = x +2 for x∈{0,1}. Present it in the 2-row form.
A = {{1},2,3} and B = {∅,1,{2},3}
I know that B\A = {∅,1,{2}} and f is a bijection from A to B\A
how do I find such function g? It obviously can't be bijection, how do I match one value to another?

Hey FallArk! (Smile)

If I understand correctly, we're talking about something like this:
\begin{tikzpicture}
%preamble \usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric,fit}

\foreach \x in {0,1}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt, label=left:\x] (d\x) at (0,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(d0) (d1),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (D) {};

\foreach \x[count=\xi] in {0,1,2}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt] (b\xi) at (4,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(b1) (b2) (b3),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (BmA) {};
\node[above] at (BmA.north) {$B \setminus A$};

\foreach \x/\p[count=\xi] in {1/\{1\},2,3}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt, label=right:\p] (a\xi) at (8,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(a1) (a2) (a3),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (A) {};
\node[above] at (A.north) {$A$};

\draw[-latex] (d0) -- node[below] {$g(0)$} (b1);
\draw[-latex] (a2) -- node[above,xshift=8,yshift=12] {$f(2+0)$} (b1);
\draw[-latex] (d1) -- node[above] {$g(1)$} (b3);
\draw[-latex] (a3) -- node[above] {$f(2+1)$} (b3);
\draw[-latex] (a1) -- node[below right,xshift=10] {$f(1)$} (b2);
\end{tikzpicture}

However, we don't seem to have any information about which elements in $B \setminus A$ we should link to, do we? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey FallArk! (Smile)

If I understand correctly, we're talking about something like this:
\begin{tikzpicture}
%preamble \usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric,fit}

\foreach \x in {0,1}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt, label=left:\x] (d\x) at (0,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(d0) (d1),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (D) {};

\foreach \x[count=\xi] in {0,1,2}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt] (b\xi) at (4,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(b1) (b2) (b3),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (BmA) {};
\node[above] at (BmA.north) {$B \setminus A$};

\foreach \x/\p[count=\xi] in {1/\{1\},2,3}{
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=2pt, label=right:\p] (a\xi) at (8,\x) {};
}
\node[fit=(a1) (a2) (a3),ellipse,draw,minimum width=1.5cm] (A) {};
\node[above] at (A.north) {$A$};

\draw[-latex] (d0) -- node[below] {$g(0)$} (b1);
\draw[-latex] (a2) -- node[above,xshift=8,yshift=12] {$f(2+0)$} (b1);
\draw[-latex] (d1) -- node[above] {$g(1)$} (b3);
\draw[-latex] (a3) -- node[above] {$f(2+1)$} (b3);
\draw[-latex] (a1) -- node[below right,xshift=10] {$f(1)$} (b2);
\end{tikzpicture}

However, we don't seem to have any information about which elements in $B \setminus A$ we should link to, do we? (Wondering)

I actually figured it out myself. But then I run into a new problem. Is it possible for a Cartesian product to be mapped into another set? (the third post is the problem)
 
FallArk said:
I actually figured it out myself. But then I run into a new problem. Is it possible for a Cartesian product to be mapped into another set? (the third post is the problem)

Okay.
For the record, it seems that $P(A)\setminus B$ contains elements that are integers, but $P(A)$ is supposed to only contain sets doesn't it? (Wondering)
I think it should contain {{1}} instead of {1}.
And {2}, which would then be removed by subtracting $B$.

And sure, we can map a cartesian product to another set.
I don't think the example will be surjective though, since the cartesian product contains 3 elements, and the co-domain contains more than 3 elements.
 
I like Serena said:
Okay.
For the record, it seems that $P(A)\setminus B$ contains elements that are integers, but $P(A)$ is supposed to only contain sets doesn't it? (Wondering)
I think it should contain {{1}} instead of {1}.
And {2}, which would then be removed by subtracting $B$.

And sure, we can map a cartesian product to another set.
I don't think the example will be surjective though, since the cartesian product contains 3 elements, and the co-domain contains more than 3 elements.

Ugh, this whole power set thing is so confusing... Surjective means something like for one y there could be more than one x right? So since there are more than 3 y-values, and only 3 x-values, it cannot be surjective.
 
FallArk said:
Ugh, this whole power set thing is so confusing... Surjective means something like for one y there could be more than one x right? So since there are more than 3 y-values, and only 3 x-values, it cannot be surjective.

Yep.
And more precisely, surjective means that for every y there has to be at least one x.
 
Back
Top