Injective Function Proof for Decreasing Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Injective Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a decreasing function is injective. The original poster presents an attempt to show that if a decreasing function were not injective, it would lead to a contradiction.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the definitions of decreasing functions and injective functions. There is a focus on the contradiction arising from assuming that f(x) = f(y) for x < y.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide guidance on the proof strategy, noting that the original poster's approach aligns with proof by contradiction. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and logical implications involved in the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the best approach to take in the proof and the definitions being used, indicating a need for clarification on the concept of decreasing functions.

Tomp
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement

Let E ⊆ R and f : E → R a decreasing function for all x ∈ E. Prove that f is injective.

The attempt at a solution

I tried that f were not injective.
Then, there exist x < y such that f(x) = f(y)
-This contradicts f being a decreasing function.
I think this is right, but I am unsure what to do now
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In what way are you unsure that x<y and f(x)=f(y) contradicts f being a decreasing function? What's your definition of 'decreasing function'?
 
For a one to one function that is decreasing i have that x < y so therefore f(x) < f(y). So f(x) is not equal to f(y)).

or have i got this the wrong way around?
 
Tomp said:
For a one to one function that is decreasing i have that x < y so therefore f(x) < f(y). So f(x) is not equal to f(y)).

So, if f(x)=f(y) for x<y then that would contradict the assumption that f is decreasing, yes? I'm still confused about where you are confused.
 
Dick said:
So, if f(x)=f(y) for x<y then that would contradict the assumption that f is decreasing, yes? I'm still confused about where you are confused.

Yes it would. I thought it would be easier to prove though contradiction my question, but I am unsure whether this is the best way to prove this/right approach.

Sorry for the confusion
 
If you are assuming f(x)=f(y) for x<y then you ARE doing a proof by contradiction. You've assumed f is not injective. And it is the right way to go. Maybe it would be better if you showed your whole proof step by step.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
5K