My sketchy proof on functions and mappings. I( Latex Fixed)

  • Context: LaTeX 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ╔(σ_σ)╝
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Latex Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof concerning functions and mappings, specifically the relationship between the inverse of the composition of functions and the inverses of individual functions. Participants explore the validity of the proof and seek feedback on its correctness.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • The original proof attempts to show that \((g \circ f)^{-1}(B) = f^{-1}(g^{-1}(B))\) by demonstrating both inclusions.
  • Some participants suggest that the LaTeX formatting needs correction for clarity, indicating that proper spacing is crucial for correct rendering.
  • A participant expresses unease about the proof's validity, questioning whether their inferences are correct.
  • Another participant asserts that the proof is correct and clarifies that the notation \(h^{-1}(A)\) refers to the preimage, which is true by definition.
  • There is a mention of technical issues with the forum's mobile version affecting the posting experience.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

While some participants express confidence in the proof's correctness, others remain uncertain and seek further validation. The discussion reflects both support for the proof and lingering doubts about specific aspects of the reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants note issues with LaTeX formatting and the potential impact of mobile posting on the clarity of the discussion. There are also concerns about the interpretation of notation related to inverse functions and preimages.

╔(σ_σ)╝
Messages
839
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



[tex]f : X \rightarrow Y[/tex] , [tex]g : Y \rightarrow Z[/tex] and [tex]B \subset Z[/tex]
Prove that
[tex]\left(g \circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B \right) = f^{-1} \left({g^{-1} \left(B\right)\right)[/tex].What is wrong with this proof ?

The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]x_{0} \in \left(g \circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) \Rightarrow g \left(f\left(x_{0} \right)\right)\in B \Rightarrow f \left(x_{0}\right) \in g^{-1} \left(B\right)[/tex]
[tex]f \left(x_{0} \right) \in g^{-1} \left(B\right) \Rightarrow x_{0} \in f^{-1} \left(g^{-1} \left(B \right) \right)[/tex]

Thus,
[tex]\left(g \circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B \right) \subset f^{-1} \left({g^{-1} \left(B \right)\right)[/tex].

I feel uneasy about the proof. I believe my inferences are correct but there is something unsettling about what I did.

Part 2.

Suppose [tex]x_{0} \in f^{-1}\left(g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex]

[tex]x_{0}\in f^{-1}\left(g^{-1} \left(B\right)\right) \Rightarrow f \left(x_{0}\right) \in g^{-1}\left(B\right) \Rightarrow g\left(f\left(x_{0}\right)\right) \in B[/tex]

[tex]g \left(f \left(x_{0} \right) \right) \in B \Rightarrow x_{0} \in \left(g \circ f\right)^{-1} \left(B \right)[/tex]
Thus,

[tex]f^{-1} \left({g^{-1} \left(B\right)\right) \subset \left(g \circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right)[/tex].

Therefore,

[tex]\left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) = f^{-1}\left({g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex].Some feedback would be appreciated. I would like to know if this proof is valid and good enough.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to put a space between latex commands and the next character.

For example \circg will not show up. It needs to be \circ g

Based on your title maybe you made this change? At any rate it's not coming through on my computer
 
Fixed some more of your LaTeX. The codomains of the functions weren't showing, plus a few other problems.
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:

Homework Statement



[tex]f : X\rightarrow Y[/tex] , [tex]g : Y\rightarrow Z[/tex] and [tex]B\subset Z[/tex]
Prove that
[tex]\left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) = f^{-1}\left({g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex].


What is wrong with this proof ?

The Attempt at a Solution



[tex]x_{0}\in \left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) \Rightarrow g\left(f\left(x_{0}\right)\right)\in B \Rightarrow f\left(x_{0}\right)\in g^{-1}\left(B\right)[/tex]
[tex]f\left(x_{0}\right)\in g^{-1}\left(B\right) \Rightarrow x_{0}\in f^{-1}\left(g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex]

Thus,
[tex]\left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) \subset f^{-1}\left({g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex].

I feel uneasy about the proof. I believe my inferences are correct but there is something unsettling about what I did.

Part 2.

Suppose [tex]x_{0}\in f^{-1}\left(g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex]

[tex]x_{0}\in f^{-1}\left(g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right) \Rightarrow f\left(x_{0}\right) \in g^{-1}\left(B\right) \Rightarrow g\left(f\left(x_{0}\right)\right) \in B[/tex]

[tex]g\left(f\left(x_{0}\right)\right) \in B \Rightarrow x_{0} \in \left(g \circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right)[/tex]
Thus,

[tex]f^{-1}\left({g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right) \subset \left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right)[/tex].

Therefore,

[tex]\left(g\circ f\right)^{-1}\left(B\right) = f^{-1}\left({g^{-1}\left(B\right)\right)[/tex].


Some feedback would be appreciated. I would like to know if this proof is valid and good enough.
 
The funny thing is that I fixed it all and checked to see if it was okay. When I logged back to read the replies it was unchanged.

The forum always acts weird when I use my phone to post threads. I think the mobile version of the forum has some bugs.

Thanks Mark.Any feedback ?
 
Does anyone have any suggestions are comments ?

I would like to know if this proof supplied here is valid . I would like to know if I have to make adjustments or rewrite the entire thing.
 
╔(σ_σ)╝ said:
Does anyone have any suggestions are comments ?

I would like to know if this proof supplied here is valid . I would like to know if I have to make adjustments or rewrite the entire thing.

Yes, your proof is correct. It's not dodgy.

I think that the reason you think it may possibly be dodgy (correct me if I'm wrong) is because you keep using the fact that [tex]x\in h^{-1}(A)[/tex] is equivalent to [tex]h(x)\in A[/tex].

The notation [tex]h^{-1}[/tex] when applied to a set (instead of an element) is not the inverse function, it's the preimage, and so that statement is actually true by definition
 
Great. You are correct about my uneasiness.

I thought I was making some claims that may put me into trouble.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K