• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Properties of Composite Functions

  • Thread starter sara_87
  • Start date
763
0
Question:

Let f: A -> B be a bijective function. Prove that

f o f^(-1) = IB

(IB = I lowercase B )

Answer:

Let x be an arbitrary element in the set A and f(x)=y . Therefore x is in A because f: A -> B.

f o f^(-1)
=f(f^(-1) (x))

and that's as far as i got

any help would be appreciated

thank you
 

cristo

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,056
72
Well, try taking a in A and b in B s.t f(a)=b. Use the fact that f is bijective, and try applying f-1 to b, and then f to the result of this.

edit: you could, instead, carry on from here:
Let x be an arbitrary element in the set A and f(x)=y .

f o f^(-1)
=f(f^(-1) (x))
However, apply the compostie function to y. What does the bijectivity of f say about f-1(y)?
 
Last edited:
763
0
'Well, try taking a in A and b in B s.t f(a)=b. Use the fact that f is bijective, and try applying f-1 to b, and then f to the result of this.'


i said (what you said) let a belong to A and b belong to B such that f(a) = b

f is bijective => it is surjective so every element in A has an image in B

s.t f(a) = b

f^(-1) b = a

and (f o f^(-1)) = f(a)
f(a) = b

so f o f^(-1) = IB

it works!

thanx
 

cristo

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,056
72
'Well, try taking a in A and b in B s.t f(a)=b. Use the fact that f is bijective, and try applying f-1 to b, and then f to the result of this.'


i said (what you said) let a belong to A and b belong to B such that f(a) = b

f is bijective => it is surjective so every element in A has an image in B

s.t f(a) = b

f^(-1) b = a

and (f o f^(-1)) b= f(a)
f(a) = b

so f o f^(-1) = IB

it works!

thanx
You're welcome. Note that you missed out the element the function is acting on in the above proof (the bit in bold). Apart from that, it's correct.
 

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,732
885
By the way, you didn't mean "I lowercase B". That would be Ib and it wouldn't make sense to write it as IB to begin with. What you meant was "I subscript B". And it would have been even better to just write "the identity function from B to itself". Actually, the fact that f(f-1)= Ib or that f(f-1(x)= x is part of the definition of f-1. What you are really proving is that f-1 exists.
 
763
0
By the way, you didn't mean "I lowercase B". That would be Ib and it wouldn't make sense to write it as IB to begin with. What you meant was "I subscript B". And it would have been even better to just write "the identity function from B to itself".
oh...next time i'll right it properly :wink:

Actually, the fact that f(f-1)= Ib or that f(f-1(x)= x is part of the definition of f-1. What you are really proving is that f-1 exists.
i don't know what that means but because you tried to help thanx! :smile:
 

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,732
885
What is the definition of f-1?
 
763
0
you know the proof that i wrote does it not prove what the question asks us to?
actually i think i know what you're saying now...i didn't show that f o f-1 of an element goes to the identity function B
 

cristo

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,056
72
Yes, it does prove what the questions asks you. You have shown that f(f-1(x))=x for all x in A. Hence f o f-1=IB.

I think what HOI meant was that the definition of f-1 states that when composed with f it is the identity function. (This is the point of the inverse function.) However, this is only if the inverse exists. The question really asks you to show that it exists.
 
Last edited:

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,732
885
Definition of inverse functions:f and g are "inverse" functions if and only if f(g(x))= x for all x in the domain of g and g(f(x))= x for all x in the domain of y. That was my point. The fact that f(f-1(x))= x is part of the definition. What you are really proving is that a function satisfying that exists.
 
763
0
You know this could of stopped at post #4, but i know HOI you wanted me to open my eyes and think about what i did and the question...so whilst answering the question i proved:

f^(-1) when composed with f it is the identity function?

i understood this from the beginning...this is so confusing!

anway i did it right and if something similar comes in the exam i think i will know what to do

(no one knows this but: i'm actually only studying maths because it is convenient; i really find some parts of it interesting but i only did it because i got good grades (i know my posts don't show this but it's true) not because i enjoy it, otherwise i would have studied art)
 

Related Threads for: Properties of Composite Functions

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
801
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
1K
Top