Prove Mapping from Set to Itself: 1-1 & Not onto iff Onto & Not 1-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter mehrts
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mapping
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the relationship between one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective) mappings within a set. It establishes that a mapping from a set to itself is one-to-one but not onto if and only if there exists a mapping that is onto but not one-to-one. The proof involves defining a function g: S → S and demonstrating the implications of injectivity and non-surjectivity through visual representation. The conclusion emphasizes the duality of these mappings, reinforcing the interconnectedness of injective and surjective functions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and functions
  • Familiarity with the concepts of injective and surjective mappings
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical proofs, particularly 'if and only if' (iff) statements
  • Ability to visualize functions and mappings using diagrams
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of injective and surjective functions in depth
  • Learn about bijective functions and their significance in set theory
  • Explore visual representation techniques for mathematical functions
  • Practice constructing 'if and only if' proofs in various mathematical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, and students studying advanced mathematics, particularly those focusing on set theory and function analysis.

mehrts
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Prove that there is a mapping from a set to itself that is one-to one but not onto iff there is a mapping from the set to itself that is onto but not one-to -one.

Since this is a 'iff' proof, so I must prove the statementlike two 'if' statements.

Let g:S ---> S.

Assume that g is 1-1 but not onto.

==> g(x1) = g(x2), for x1,x2 E S

==> x1 = x2

Now what ? Since the mapping is not onto, there must be no y E S such that y = g(x) for some x E S. I'm stuck. Dunno what to do :-(
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Draw a picture. A map from a set to itself can be pictured as a bunch of arrows with the tail at x and the head at f(x) for each arrow.

Injective means that no two arrows meet, and surjective means every element is at the head of an arrow.

So if we draw two blobs for two copies of X and a picture of an ijective function that is not surjective can't you see how to reverse the arrows and add somemore into get a picture with a surjective map that is not injective? The dual statement follows immediately as well.
 
Thxs I get it. :smile:

I might post the solution up here later. :cool:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K