Prove that an endomorphism is injective iff it is surjective

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

An endomorphism between two finite sets is injective if and only if it is surjective. This conclusion is derived from the definitions of injective and surjective functions, where an injective function maps each element of the domain to a unique element in the codomain, and a surjective function ensures every element in the codomain is covered. Given that both sets are of equal size, the injectivity guarantees surjectivity and vice versa. A formal approach can involve defining functions and using bijective mappings to illustrate the relationship.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of injective and surjective functions
  • Familiarity with finite sets and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of function notation and mappings
  • Ability to work with mathematical proofs and definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of bijective functions
  • Learn about function composition and its implications for injectivity and surjectivity
  • Explore examples of endomorphisms in different mathematical contexts
  • Practice formal proofs involving injective and surjective functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of functions, particularly in the context of finite sets and mappings.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


Prove that an endomorphism between two finite sets is injective iff it is surjective

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I can explain this in words. First assume that it is injective. This means that every element in the domain is mapped to a single, unique element in the codomain, with no overlap. Since the domain and the codomain are the same size, this means that the map would have to be surjective. In the other direction, assume that the map is surjective, which means that every element in the domain must be associated with a unique element in the codomian. Since they are the same size, this the map is injective.

Is this acceptable? Is there a better, more mathematical way to come to these conclusions using the definitions of injective and surjective?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:

Homework Statement


Prove that an endomorphism between two finite sets is injective iff it is surjective

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I can explain this in words. First assume that it is injective. This means that every element in the domain is mapped to a single, unique element in the codomain, with no overlap. Since the domain and the codomain are the same size, this means that the map would have to be surjective. In the other direction, assume that the map is surjective, which means that every element in the domain must be associated with a unique element in the codomian, since they are the same size. This the map is injective.

Is this acceptable? Is there a better, more mathematical way to come to these conclusions using the definitions of injective and surjective?
The surjectivity case looks a bit suspicious.
In the other direction, assume that the map is surjective, which means that every element in the
codomain has an associated element in the domain and the same size guarantees that none in the domain can map to the same element of the codomain for all elements are targeted.
This the map is injective.

If you like, you could put all this into formulas. Say we have a function ##f\, : \, X \longrightarrow Y## with ##|X|=|Y|=:n < \infty##. The definitions are:

##f## is injective, iff ##f(x)=f(y) \Longrightarrow x=y## and
##f## is surjective, iff ##\forall \; y\in Y \;\exists \; x\in X\, : \,f(x)=y## or likewise ##\forall \; y\in Y\, : \,f^{-1}(y) \neq \emptyset\,.##

It might help in this case, to define numberings ##N_X\, : \, \{1,2,\ldots, n\} \longrightarrow X## and ##N_Y\, : \, \{1,2,\ldots, n\} \longrightarrow Y## and show that ##N_Y^{-1}\circ f \circ N_X## is a bijective. I'm not sure whether these extra mappings are actually needed, it's just an idea to formalize what you actually did in your reasoning.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K