Given g from X onto Y, can we find some f from Y into X without the axiom of choice?

In summary, the statement "every surjection has a right inverse" is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. This can be verified by using the axiom of choice and proving that every injection has a left inverse.
  • #1
Unit
182
0
I thought of this today while eating apples.

Suppose we have two arbitrary sets X and Y and a surjection g:X→Y. We seek an injection f:Y→X. Each element of Y has at least one pre-image in X, but there might be more than one; the nonempty sets [itex]X_y = \{ x\in X : g(x) = y \}[/itex] are subsets of X, indexed by Y. In fact, they partition X, for if we had [itex]x\in X_a\cap X_b[/itex] then, by definition, a = g(x) = b. Thus these sets are pairwise disjoint; by the axiom of choice, there exists a function h such that [itex]h(X_y) \in X_y[/itex] for all [itex]y \in Y[/itex]. From here, we can define the injection f(y) = h(Xy).

Is there a proof which does not use the axiom of choice?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Unit said:
I thought of this today while eating apples.

Suppose we have two arbitrary sets X and Y and a surjection g:X→Y. We seek an injection f:Y→X. Each element of Y has at least one pre-image in X, but there might be more than one; the nonempty sets [itex]X_y = \{ x\in X : g(x) = y \}[/itex] are subsets of X, indexed by Y. In fact, they partition X, for if we had [itex]x\in X_a\cap X_b[/itex] then, by definition, a = g(x) = b. Thus these sets are pairwise disjoint; by the axiom of choice, there exists a function h such that [itex]h(X_y) \in X_y[/itex] for all [itex]y \in Y[/itex]. From here, we can define the injection f(y) = h(Xy).

Is there a proof which does not use the axiom of choice?



In the general case? I highly doubt it. For particular cases it may be,

for example for finite X (and, thus, finite Y), or perhaps some weak case of AC if X is countable...

DonAntonio
 
  • #4


That every surjective function has a right inverse is equivalent to the axiom of choice.
 
Last edited:
  • #5


Unit said:
I thought of this today while eating apples.

Suppose we have two arbitrary sets X and Y and a surjection g:X→Y. We seek an injection f:Y→X. Each element of Y has at least one pre-image in X, but there might be more than one; the nonempty sets [itex]X_y = \{ x\in X : g(x) = y \}[/itex] are subsets of X, indexed by Y. In fact, they partition X, for if we had [itex]x\in X_a\cap X_b[/itex] then, by definition, a = g(x) = b. Thus these sets are pairwise disjoint; by the axiom of choice, there exists a function h such that [itex]h(X_y) \in X_y[/itex] for all [itex]y \in Y[/itex]. From here, we can define the injection f(y) = h(Xy).

Is there a proof which does not use the axiom of choice?

I think you might have this a little backward, but let me try to straighten this out. You can tell me if I'm understanding you correctly.

To get to the conclusion right away: As jgens noted, the statement "every surjection has a right inverse" is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. I think it's what you're getting at.

When doing problems with maps between two sets, there's a convention that f goes left to right and g goes right to left. It's very confusing to start with g:X->Y. So if you don't mind I'll change your notation to conform to this convention.

So we have [itex]f:X \rightarrow Y[/itex] a surjection.

For each [itex]y \in Y[/itex] we can define the inverse image of [itex]y[/itex], exactly as you have it above:

[itex]f^{-1}(y) = X_y = \{ x\in X : f(x) = y \}[/itex] and for each [itex]y[/itex] this is a nonempty set.

Now the collection of sets [itex]f^{-1}(y)[/itex] does of course partition X; and using the Axiom of Choice we can define [itex]g:Y \rightarrow X[/itex] by choosing [itex]g(y) \in f^{-1}(y) [/itex].

Then it's clear that for each y we have [itex]fg(y) = y[/itex]. We say that g is a right inverse of [itex]f[/itex]. And we have just proved that AC implies that every surjection has a right inverse.

[Remember that fg means we do g first! This is a common point of confusion]

It turns out that you can go back the other way: "Every surjection has a right inverse" implies AC. [Needs proof of course.] So they are equivalent.

I'm not sure where you were going with the bit about an injection; so if I'm not sure if I answered the question you actually meant to ask. However I seem to recall that every injection has a left inverse; and this does not require any form of Choice.
 
Last edited:

1. Can we find an explicit formula for f without using the axiom of choice?

No, it is not always possible to find an explicit formula for f without using the axiom of choice. This is because the axiom of choice allows us to make infinitely many choices, which is necessary in some cases to construct a function from Y into X.

2. How does the axiom of choice affect the existence of f from Y into X?

The axiom of choice is necessary for the existence of f from Y into X in some cases. Without it, there may not be enough elements in Y to map onto each element in X, resulting in the function being incomplete or not existing at all.

3. Can we prove the existence of f without using the axiom of choice?

Yes, it is possible to prove the existence of f without using the axiom of choice in some cases. This can be done by constructing f directly without relying on making infinitely many choices.

4. Are there any alternatives to the axiom of choice in this situation?

Yes, there are alternative axioms, such as the axiom of determinacy, which can be used to prove the existence of f without using the axiom of choice. However, these axioms may have their own limitations and may not be applicable in all situations.

5. Is the axiom of choice necessary for all functions from Y into X?

No, the axiom of choice is not always necessary for functions from Y into X. In some cases, it may be possible to construct f without using the axiom of choice. However, in other cases, the axiom of choice may be necessary for f to exist.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
607
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
61
Views
7K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top