Properties of the Function f:Z→Z with the Rule f(n) = 4n^3 - 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicnicman
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the function f: Z→Z defined by the rule f(n) = 4n^3 - 1. Participants are examining whether the function is one-to-one, onto, both, or neither.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore how to demonstrate that the function is one-to-one and question the method for proving it is onto. Some suggest providing proofs and counterexamples to support their claims.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing examination of the function's injectivity, with some participants agreeing on its one-to-one nature based on provided reasoning. The discussion about whether the function is onto is also active, with references to specific values that cannot be achieved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original problem does not explicitly require formal proofs, leading to a focus on arguments and counterexamples instead.

nicnicman
Messages
132
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Is the function one-to-one, onto, both, or neither?
f: Z→Z has the rule of f(n) = 4n^3 - 1

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



My answer: one-to-one

Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, how would you show it was one to one? How would you show it was onto?
 
I believe you are right that it is injective. It be wise that you show a proof to confirm its 1:1 and a counterexample to show its onto.
 
Well, the function is not onto because there is no integer n where 4n^3 - 1 = 1.
 
One-to-one proof:

4u^3 - 1 = 4v^3 - 1
4u^3 = 4v^3
u^3 = v ^3
u = v
 
Good. Now what about onto?
 
Thanks.

The function is not onto because there is no integer n where 4n^3 - 1 = 1.
 
nicnicman said:
One-to-one proof:

4u^3 - 1 = 4v^3 - 1
4u^3 = 4v^3
u^3 = v ^3
u = v

That seems fine to me. Neither of those is really a full scale proof. But I doubt you are expected to provide one. They are both good arguments that what you say is correct.
 
Yeah, the book doesn't even ask for a proof, but it's nice to know that the answer is right.
 
  • #10
I disagree. What he gave are "full scale proofs". He showed that if f(u)= f(v) then u= v which is a perfectly good proof that f is "one to one". And he gave a counter example showing that it is NOT "onto".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K