Is There a Counterexample to the Function Composition Property?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of function composition, specifically exploring the conditions under which the composition of two functions can be one-to-one, despite one of the functions not being one-to-one. The original poster is investigating the existence of a function g: B→C that is not one-to-one while ensuring that the composition g∘f is one-to-one.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining specific functions and their properties, questioning the feasibility of finding a non-one-to-one function g that still results in a one-to-one composition with f. Some participants suggest that the nature of the functions and their domains and codomains plays a crucial role in this exploration.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing examples and questioning the assumptions behind the properties of the functions involved. There is a recognition of the complexity of the problem, and some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions and properties of the functions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of specifying the domains and codomains of the functions involved, as this affects the ability to determine their properties accurately. The original poster's assignment context is also acknowledged, which involves proving a related property of function composition.

foxjwill
Messages
350
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let [tex]f: A\to B[/tex]. I'm trying to find a function [tex]g: B\to C[/tex] such that [tex]g[/tex] is not [tex]1-1[/tex] but [tex]g\circ f[/tex] is.

The original assignment (which I've completed) was to prove that for all functions [tex]f: A\to B[/tex] and [tex]g: B\to C[/tex], if [tex]g\circ f[/tex] is [tex]1-1[/tex], then so is [tex]f[/tex]. However, in the process of completing the assignment, I tried (out of curiosity) to find g's that weren't 1-1. But I couldn't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
f: n -> (n,n)
g: (m,n) -> m
gf = identity, neither f nor g is one-to-one
 
Have you thought about why it may not be possible? If the composite is defined then [tex]g\circ f[/tex] = g(f(x)) where x is in A. If f(x) is bijective then g(f(x)) = g(B)
 
Preno said:
f: n -> (n,n)
g: (m,n) -> m
gf = identity, neither f nor g is one-to-one

First of all, when specifying a function (and worrying about its properties), without the domain and codomain, you can't really tell much.

But assuming you have f: R -> R^2, and g: R^2 -> R, then f actually is one to one.

edit:
But since g isn't one-to-one, you have answered my question. So, thanks!
 
The domain is any arbitrary set A with more than 1 element, the codomain is A x A.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K