Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Injective function proof

  1. Sep 23, 2007 #1
    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: Sep 23, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 23, 2007 #2
    If x is not in A, then f(x) is not in f(A) (injectivity) so x is not in f^-1(f(A))
  4. Sep 23, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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))​
    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: Sep 23, 2007
  5. Sep 23, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes, but that doesn't say anything about what happens if x IS A, which is the whole point.

    waht, 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)).
  6. Sep 23, 2007 #5

    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 waht was asking for.
  7. Sep 23, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes, I understood that. That was why I said, "If x is in A_0"- because that's the direction you want to prove.
  8. Sep 23, 2007 #7
    Am I reading this incorrectly?

  9. Sep 24, 2007 #8
    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: Sep 24, 2007
  10. Sep 24, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
  11. Sep 24, 2007 #10
    Thanks I get it now,

    I should have been more clearer.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Injective function proof
  1. Proof of function (Replies: 4)