1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Inverse and Image

  1. Jul 3, 2007 #1
    The inverse image of a function, and the image of the inverse of a function is written in the same way right?
    It is so confusing.
    Are there any better ways to write such stuff?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, it's not confusing. If f has an inverse, then the image of the inverse and the inverse image are exactly the same.

    (I once made a fool of myself when, giving a proof about "inverse images", I assumed (naturally!) that the function had an inverse!)
  4. Jul 3, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Example: Consider [tex]f(x) = x^2[/tex].

    If it's defined on the whole real axis, then [tex]f^{-1}(\{4\}) = \{ +2, -2 \}[/tex].
    If we restrict it to the positive axis, then If it's defined on the whole real axis, then [tex]f^{-1}(\{4\}) = \{ 2 \}[/tex].
    But now the function is injective, so invertible (you can in fact write down an explicit inverse, namely [itex]g(x) = \sqrt{x}[/itex]. The inverse satisfies [tex]g(4) = 2[/tex]. Actually, the inverse in a point is the pre-image of that point (which consists of just one element).
  5. Jul 3, 2007 #4
    >>>If f has an inverse, then the image of the inverse and the inverse image are exactly the same.
    I have proven this. But it should be a theorem as it is not trivial or obvious to me.
  6. Jul 3, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's not? Look at my example. The inverse image of y contains all the points that get mapped by f to y. A function has an inverse if it's injective, that is: the inverse image contains just one point x_y. If we define the inverse [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] as the function that satisfies
    [tex] f^{-1}f = f f^{-1} = \mathrm{id}[/tex] ([itex]\ast[/itex])
    we must assign x_y to y. We could also define the inverse function as the map that does this, and then it's almost trivial to check that ([itex]\ast[/itex]) is satisfied.
  7. Jul 9, 2007 #6
    Just wanted to point out that a function has to be bijective to be invertible. So it has to be both injective and surjective. So if we have the function [tex] f: \mathbb{R}^{+} \to \mathbb{R}^{+} [/tex] defined by [tex] f(x) = x^{2} [/tex], then [tex] f^{-1}(x) = \sqrt{x} [/tex] (positive square root) is bijective.

    Also maybe you are talking about the following: [tex] \overrightarrow{f}: \mathcal{P}(X) \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(Y)[/tex] is defined by [tex] \overrightarrow{f}(A) = \{f(x) | x \in A \}[/tex] for [tex] A \in \mathcal{P}(X) \}[/tex] and [tex] \overleftarrow{f}: \mathcal{P}(Y) \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(X)[/tex] is defined by [tex] \overleftarrow{f}(B) = \{x \in X | f(x) \in B \}[/tex] for [tex] B \in \mathcal{P}(Y) }[/tex]. These two functions are basically extensions of [tex] f [/tex] and [tex] f^{-1} [/tex].

    So if [tex] f [/tex] is a bijection with inverse [tex] f^{-1} [/tex], then [tex] f(x) = y_0 [/tex] iff [tex] x = f^{-1}(y_0) [/tex] so that [tex] \overleftarrow{f}(\{y_0\}) = \{f^{-1}(y_0)\} [/tex]. So the RHS could contain more than 1 element, or none at all for certain values of [tex] y [/tex].
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2007
  8. Jul 10, 2007 #7
    A function doesn't have to be bijective to be invertible, only injective. Essentially, one-to-one means that [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is a function with domain Im(f). Surjectiveness will tell you that the domain of the inverse (exists if f is one-to-one) is precisely the codomain.

    Just look at any analysis text that needs to use inverses: they will show that [itex]f[/itex] is one-to-one and then start invoking [itex]f^{-1}[/itex], since it exists.
  9. Jul 10, 2007 #8
    Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function. For the inverse function to exist and be valid, it must be bijective.

    So the function [tex] \sin: [-\pi/2, \pi/2] \to [-1,1] [/tex] is bijective and thus invertible. But [tex] \sin: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} [/tex] is not invertible. It essentially hits the image, and is one-to-one (first one). Usually we say that the inverse of [tex] \sin(x) [/tex] is [tex] \arcsin(x) [/tex]. But we make assumptions about the domain and codomain (i.e restrictions).
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
  10. Jul 10, 2007 #9
    Tronter: I seldom see such rigor in text books. Wonder where you get that?
  11. Jul 10, 2007 #10

    Nice post. Extending your remarks a bit, the following is a useful theorem about inverses:

    Let f:A->B, with A not empty. Then

    f is injective iff f has a left-inverse,
    f is surjective iff f has a right-inverse,
    f is bijective iff f has a two-sided inverse (a left and right inverse that are equal).

    This two-sided inverse is called the inverse of f.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
  12. Jul 10, 2007 #11
    Nice theorem.
    A function is a special type of relation R in which every element of the domain appears in exactly one of each x in the xRy. A relation is a subset of a Cartesian product. A Cartesian product AXB is a set of (a,b) tuple where a belongs to A, and b belongs to B. A (a,b) tuple is actually the set {a,{a,b}}.
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Inverse and Image
  1. Inverse gamma (Replies: 1)

  2. Image of a set (Replies: 1)