Is g(f) One-to-One if f is Not One-to-One? Prove It.

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of composite functions, specifically examining whether the composition g(f) is one-to-one given that the function f is not one-to-one. The functions f and g map between sets A, B, and C.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of f not being one-to-one and question whether assumptions about g's properties are necessary. There is a focus on understanding the definitions of one-to-one and not one-to-one functions.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the relationship between the functions and their properties, while others express confusion about the definitions and implications of the terms involved. The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the assumptions that can be made about the function g, as well as the definitions of one-to-one and not one-to-one in the context of composite functions.

major_maths
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
1. Assume that f : A -> B and g : B -> C and that f is not one
to one. Prove that g(f) is not one to one.

2. one-to-one: x1 != x2 and f(x1) != f(x2)
not one-to-one: f(x1)=f(x2) and x1 != x2

3. The start of the proof should go as follows:

Assume f: A->B, g: B -> C, f is not 1-1, g is 1-1.
Since f is not 1-1, there exists an x1 and an x2 in the dom(f) such that f(x1) = f(x2) and x1 != x2.
Since g is 1-1, for every x1 and x2 in dom(f), if x1 != x2 then g(x1) != g(x2).

And that's as far as I got. I'm not sure if I should assume g is 1-1 since that's not explicitly in the instructions, but I don't thing g(f) could be 1-1 if g wasn't 1-1. I tried plugging f(x1) into g but I couldn't find a logical way to get to the conclusion by doing that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't need to assume anything about g, do you? If f(x1)=f(x2) then g(f(x1))=g(f(x2)), yes? What does that tell you about g(f)?
 
Last edited:
Oh. It tells me that g(f) is not one-to-one. But if that's the case, shouldn't f(x1) = f(x2)? I thought that that was the other part of the definition of not being one-to-one, that if the inputs are different then the outputs should be the same. And since f(x1) and f(x2) are the inputs in this case, shouldn't they be equal?
 
major_maths said:
Oh. It tells me that g(f) is not one-to-one. But if that's the case, shouldn't f(x1) = f(x2)? I thought that that was the other part of the definition of not being one-to-one, that if the inputs are different then the outputs should be the same. And since f(x1) and f(x2) are the inputs in this case, shouldn't they be equal?

I'm really not sure I understand that. Sure, g(f) is not one-to-one. But what 'other part of not being one-to-one' are talking about? If two different inputs give the same output then it's not one-to-one. There is no other part of NOT being one-to-one.
 
Like Dick said, you don't need g to be not 1-1 to obtain the solution. From the hypothesis, there exist x1 and x2 such that f(x1) = f(x2), where f(x1) and f(x2) are members of B. Since g maps B to C, then g is...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K