How can the inequality hold for an injective function?

waht
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
4
This is something I understood before, but for some reason I forgot it. How do you prove this inequality holds, if f is injective?

[tex]A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))[/tex]
 
Last edited:
on Phys.org
If x is not in A, then f(x) is not in f(A) (injectivity) so x is not in f^-1(f(A))
 
what said:
This is something I understood before, but for some reason I forgot it. How do you prove this inequality holds, if f is injective?

[tex]A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))[/tex]
Proofs of set algebra identities tend to be rather formulaic. If you look at the definition of "subset", then two proofs should immediately suggest themselves:
Let x be an element of A_0 ... Therefore x is in f^{-1}(f(A_0))​
and
Suppose x is not an element of f^{-1}(f(A_0)) ... Therefore x is not in A_0​

And from there, you simply have to fill in the missing steps. And again, the missing steps are usually obvious from unwinding the definitions.
 
Last edited:
what said:
This is something I understood before, but for some reason I forgot it. How do you prove this inequality holds, if f is injective?

[tex]A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))[/tex]

Nolen Ryba said:
If x is not in A, then f(x) is not in f(A) (injectivity) so x is not in f^-1(f(A))
Yes, but that doesn't say anything about what happens if x IS A, which is the whole point.

what, the standard way of proving "[itex]A\subset B[/itex] is to start "If x is in A" and then conclude "then x is in B".
If x is in A_0, you know that f(x) is in f(A_0). Now, what does the fact that f is injective say about x and f-1(f(A_0)).
 
HallsofIvy,

I'm not sure what you mean. I showed [tex]f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \subset A_0[/tex] which is the other half of the equality what was asking for.
 
Nolen Ryba said:
HallsofIvy,

I'm not sure what you mean. I showed [tex]f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \subset A_0[/tex] which is the other half of the equality what was asking for.

Yes, I understood that. That was why I said, "If x is in A_0"- because that's the direction you want to prove.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, I understood that. That was why I said, "If x is in A_0"- because that's the direction you want to prove.

Am I reading this incorrectly?

what said:
How do you prove this inequality holds, if f is injective?
 
what said:
This is something I understood before, but for some reason I forgot it. How do you prove this inequality holds, if f is injective?

[tex]A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))[/tex]

I'll assume you're starting from: f:A -> B and A_0 is a subset of A.

The inclusion relation you've written holds regardless of whether f is injective or not.
However, if f is injective, then the relation can be written as an equality.
Proof is nothing more than working the definitions, as has already been suggested.
 
Last edited:
Finally, it dawns on me. I was reading the whole thing backwards. I thought the question was to prove that if f is injective, then... Sorry, everyone.
 
  • #10
Thanks I get it now,

I should have been more clearer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K