MHB Inverse of F: {(1,2)(2,2)(3,2)(4,5)(5,3)}

  • Thread starter Thread starter JProgrammer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse
Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept of the inverse of a binary relation, specifically for the function F = {(1,3)(2,2)(3,2)(4,2)(5,5)}. The inverse, denoted as F^-1, is defined by switching the elements of each ordered pair in F, resulting in F^-1 = {(3,1)(2,2)(2,3)(2,4)(5,5)}. It is emphasized that F^-1 is not a function because it maps the same input (2) to multiple outputs (2, 3, and 4). The distinction between functions and relations is highlighted, noting that while all functions are relations, not all relations qualify as functions. Understanding these definitions is crucial for grasping the properties of binary relations and their inverses.
JProgrammer
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
F has the following sets:

F = {(1,3)(2,2)(3,2)(4,2)(5,5)}

Does F^-1 mean:

F = {(1,2)(2,2)(3,2)(4,5)(5,3)}

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JProgrammer said:
F has the following sets:

F = {(1,3)(2,2)(3,2)(4,2)(5,5)}
Several remarks.
  1. $F$ is probably a binary relation.
  2. Elements of a set are listed in curly braces and are separated by commas.
  3. Things like $(1,3)$ are not sets, but ordered pairs. There is also a set $\{1,3\}$, but $\{1,3\}=\{3,1\}$ as sets, while $(1,3)\ne(3,1)$ as ordered pairs.

JProgrammer said:
Does F^-1 mean:

F = {(1,2)(2,2)(3,2)(4,5)(5,3)}
The definition of the inverse of a binary relation $F$ is as follows.
\[
F^{-1}=\{(y,x)\mid (x,y)\in F\}
\]
That is, you need to take every ordered pair in $F$ and switch the first and second elements in it.
 
The given F is a function from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} to the set {2, 3, 5} (which can be interpreted as a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}). We can think of it as changing 1 to 3 (or "changing 1 to 3" or "mapping 1 to 3"), 2 to 2, 3 to 2, 4 to 2, and 5 to 5. Its inverse, F^{-1}, usually read as "F inverse", goes the opposite way, changing 3 to 1, 2 to 2, 2 to 3, 2 to 4, and 5 to 5. It can be written as F^{-1}= {(3, 1), (2, 2), (2, 3), (2, 4), (5, 5)}.

That F^{-1} is not a function- it is, rather, the more general "relation" (every function is a relation, not every relation is a function). The difference is that, for a function, which can always be written as "y= f(x)", the same value of x cannot give different values of y: we cannot have 2= f(2) and 3= f(2).
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K