How can the inequality hold for an injective function?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the inequality \( A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \) for an injective function \( f \). Participants explore the implications of injectivity on set inclusion and the necessary steps to demonstrate this relationship.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if \( x \) is in \( A_0 \), then \( f(x) \) is in \( f(A_0) \), which leads to \( x \) being in \( f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \).
  • Others argue that the proof requires showing both directions of the inclusion, specifically \( f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \subset A_0 \) as part of establishing the equality.
  • A participant mentions that the inclusion holds regardless of injectivity, but injectivity allows for the relation to be expressed as an equality.
  • There is confusion among participants regarding the direction of the proof and the implications of injectivity on the set relations.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the clarity of their arguments and the overall understanding of the proof requirements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof structure or clarity of the argument. Multiple competing views remain regarding the necessary steps to demonstrate the inclusion and the role of injectivity.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the proof relies on unwinding definitions and may involve missing steps that are typically straightforward. There is also mention of potential misunderstandings regarding the initial question posed.

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:
Physics news 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
1K
  • · 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
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K