MHB How do you prove that a function is bijective?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
To prove that the function f: (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) defined by f(x) = x^2 is bijective, it is first established as injective by showing that if f(a) = f(b), then a must equal b. For surjectivity, it is necessary to demonstrate that for every y in (0, ∞), there exists an x in (0, ∞) such that y = x^2, which can be achieved by defining a right-inverse function g(x) = √x. This approach emphasizes the importance of the function's domain and co-domain in determining its properties. The discussion also highlights how changing these parameters can affect the function's injectivity and surjectivity. Understanding these concepts is essential for proving a function's bijectiveness.
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...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K