How can the inequality hold for an injective function?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the inequality A_0 ⊆ f^{-1}(f(A_0)) for an injective function f. Participants clarify that this inclusion holds true regardless of injectivity, but if f is injective, the relation becomes an equality. The proof involves demonstrating that if x is in A_0, then f(x) is in f(A_0), and subsequently showing that x must also be in f^{-1}(f(A_0)). The conversation highlights the importance of understanding definitions in set theory to construct the proof effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of injective functions in mathematics
  • Familiarity with set theory concepts, particularly subsets
  • Knowledge of function notation and inverse functions
  • Ability to construct mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of injective functions in detail
  • Learn about set algebra identities and their proofs
  • Explore the concept of inverse functions and their applications
  • Practice constructing proofs involving subsets and functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying abstract algebra, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of functions and set theory.

waht
Messages
1,499
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?

A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))
 
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?

A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))
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?

A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))

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 "A\subset B 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 f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \subset A_0 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 f^{-1}(f(A_0)) \subset A_0 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?

A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))

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
724
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K