MHB How do you prove that a function is bijective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Guest2
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Suppose I want to prove that the function $f: (0, \infty) \to (0, \infty)$ defined by $f(x) = x^2$ is bijective.

Let $a, b \in (0, \infty)$ and $f(a) = f(b)$. Then $a^2 = b^2 \implies a = b$ since everything is non-negative we can simply take square roots. Therefore $f$ is injective. To prove that $f$ is surjective, let $y \in (0, \infty)$. How do I prove that there's $x \in (0, \infty)$ such that $y=x^2$?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I believe that follows from the definition of the function.
 
One way to prove a function $f:A \to B$ is surjective, is to define a function $g:B \to A$ such that $f\circ g = 1_B$, that is, show $f$ has a right-inverse.

Equivalently, we must show for all $b \in B$, that $f(g(b)) = b$. Beware! This does NOT mean that $g(f(a)) = a$, in fact this is usually untrue (unless $f$ is injective).

In this case, we may take $g(x) = \sqrt{x}$, which works BECAUSE OF THE DOMAINS of $f$ and $g$ (non-negative reals).

Investigate which (injectivity or surjectivity, or both) fails if we change the domain, or co-domain, like so:

$f: \Bbb R \to [0,\infty)$ given by $f(x) = x^2$

$f: \Bbb R \to \Bbb R$ given by $f(x) = x^2$.

Perhaps this will persuade you that the properties of a function do not depend just on its "rule of computation".
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top