1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Injective Proof

  1. May 21, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    ##f : A \rightarrow B## if and only if ##\exists g : B \rightarrow A## with the property ##(g \circ f)(a) = a##, for all ##a \in A## (In other words, ##g## is the left inverse of ##f##)

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution
    I have already prove the one direction. Now I am trying to verify that, if ##f## is injective, then there must exist a left inverse ##g##. However, I am having great difficulty in doing so. I am understand the philosophy behind it: I have to define a function ##g## so that ##(g \circ f)(a) = a## holds true. But I cannot see how to explicitly use f's injectivity to construct such a function. Would someone mind pointing me in the right direction?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2015 #2

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Do you mean "[itex]f: A \to B[/itex] is injective if and only if ..."?

    Let [itex]b \in B[/itex]. Either there exists an [itex]a \in A[/itex] such that [itex]f(a) = b[/itex] or there does not.

    Suppose first that such an [itex]a[/itex] exists. Since [itex]f[/itex] is injective ...
     
  4. May 21, 2015 #3
    Because ##f## is injective, then if there exists another, call it ##a' \in A##, so that ##f(a') = b##, then we can conclude ##a = a'##. Thus, ##a## is uniquely mapped to ##b##.
     
  5. May 22, 2015 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Actually, it appears he is trying to prove "f is bijective".
     
  6. May 22, 2015 #5

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Mere injectiveity is necessary and sufficient for a left inverse to exist, which is what the OP is trying to show.

    (Also, the title of the thread is "injective proof", not "bijective proof". Further, the OP didn't correct my assumption.)
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2015
  7. May 22, 2015 #6
    I apologize for not responding sooner. My idea was, that if ##f(a)## is uniquely associated to ##a##, so that, if ##g## is defined to take back ##f(a)## back to ##a##, then it is a well-defined function. Isn't that right?
     
  8. May 22, 2015 #7

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    That deals with the case where [itex]b = f(a)[/itex] for some [itex]a \in A[/itex]. You have now to deal with those [itex]b \in B[/itex] for which there is no such [itex]a[/itex].
     
  9. May 31, 2015 #8
    Okay, I suspect that it does not matter, that if I consistently chose the same element in ##A##, say ##a_0 \in A##, then ##g## will be the function after which I am seeking. In other words, if I choose ##g## to map all of those elements ##b \in B## which are not associated with any elements in ##A## by ##f## to the element ##a_0##. In short, ##g(b) = a_0##, if there does not exist an ##a \in A## such that ##f(a) = b##.
     
  10. Jun 6, 2015 #9
    So, does the reasoning in my last post appear correct?
     
  11. Jun 6, 2015 #10
    Yes it does, in post #6 you have designed a left inverse function of f from ##B \rightarrow A##, that you improved in post #8 to a left inverse mapping from ##B \rightarrow A##.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted