Invert a triple composite function p(q(r(x)))

infk
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hey,
Let ##(f,g) \in B^A## where ##A## and ##B## are non-empty sets, ##B^A## denotes the set of bijective functions between ##A## and ##B##.
We assume that there exists ##h_0: A \rightarrow A## and ##h_1: B \rightarrow B## such that ##f = h_1 \circ g \circ h_0 ##.
This implies that ##g = h^{-1}_1 \circ f \circ h^{-1}_0##, according to my teacher, but why is that?
We have that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h^{-1}_0 ##, but how do I proceed from that?

I have drawn a graph with sets and arrows representing functions such that going from ##A## to ##B## via ##h_0##, ##g## and ##h_1## is the same as going from ##A## to ##B## via ##f##. I then manipulated this graph a little while maintaining the proper relations between the sets, which showed that going from ##A## to ##B## via ##g## is the same as going through (in order) ##h^{-1}_0##, ##f## and ##h^{-1}_1##, but this is hardly a proof at all.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
infk said:
We have that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h^{-1}_0 ##, but how do I proceed from that?

Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h(x) = h(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h^{-1}( f ( h(x)) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.


Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?

A knockdown-drag-out roof could begin: "Consider the two functions A(x) = h^{-1}f( h(x)) and B(x) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) ."

If A(x) = y then show that x = h((f^{-1}(h^{-1}(x)). Use that expression for x to show that B(x) = y also. In a similar manner show that if B(x) = y then A(x) = y. Argue that A(x) and B(x) have the same domain and range. Thus they are identical functions.

.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h(x) = h(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h^{-1}( f ( h(x)) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?

A knockdown-drag-out roof could begin: "Consider the two functions A(x) = h^{-1}f( h(x)) and B(x) = g(h^{-1}(h(x)) ."

If A(x) = y then show that x = h((f^{-1}(h^{-1}(x)). Use that expression for x to show that B(x) = y also. In a similar manner show that if B(x) = y then A(x) = y. Argue that A(x) and B(x) have the same domain and range. Thus they are identical functions.

.
Hi and thanks for the response. What I meant was of course that ##h^{-1}_1 \circ f = g \circ h_0##, it seems though that you did not notice my typo. Also, could you use subscript notation, it is not clear which of ##h_1## and ##h_2## you mean. Cheers
 
Last edited:
Using magic and superstition, if we begin with the equation h_0^{-1}(x) = h_0^{-1}(x) and apply "equal functions" to both sides of that equation then we can get to h_1^{-1}( f ( h_0^{-1}(x)) = g(h_0(h_0^{-1}(x)) = g(x). The problem is how to justify that procedure.

Your materials may have proven that procedure as a theorem. We'd need to see those materials in order to find an easy proof. Are you asking for some "slick" way of proving the result?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
573
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top