MHB Proving Inverse of 1-1 Function $f$

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Inverse
Click For Summary
To prove that for a one-to-one function \( f \), the equation \( f^{-1}(f(x)) = x \) holds for all \( x \) in the domain of \( f \), it is important to clarify that \( f^{-1}(y) \) is a subset of the domain of \( f \) when \( y \) is in the target of \( f \). The correct statement is \( f^{-1}(f(x)) = \{x\} \). Assuming there exists another element \( x' \) in \( f^{-1}(f(x)) \) that is not equal to \( x \) leads to a contradiction, as it would imply \( f(x') = f(x) \), violating the one-to-one property. Visualizing the function's mapping can help in understanding this concept intuitively. Thus, the relationship holds true for one-to-one functions.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Wave)

Could you give me a hint how I could show that if $f$ is a function, that is $1-1$, then, it stands that:

$$(\forall x \in dom(f)) f^{-1}(f(x))=x$$

? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hi! (Wave)

Could you give me a hint how I could show that if $f$ is a function, that is $1-1$, then, it stands that:

$$(\forall x \in dom(f)) f^{-1}(f(x))=x$$

? (Thinking)

Firstly, there is a problem with your statement as such.

Note that $f^{-1}(y)$ is a subset of the domain of $f$ whenever $y$ is in the target of $f$. So what you intend to write is this:

$$(\forall x\in \text{dom}f)\ f^{-1}(f(x))=\{x\}$$

Now. Assume that there is some pesky $x$ in the domain of $f$ such that $f^{-1}(f(x))=S\neq \{x\}$.

Note that $x$ is clearly in $S$.

By assumption, there exists $x'\in S$ such that $x'\neq x$. But then $f(x')=f(x)$ where $x'\neq x$. So $f$ is not $1$-$1$.

This is merely language. If you find this cryptic, try thinking what a $1$-$1$ looks like in terms of pictures. Make the domain a a "bubble" and put a few dots in it. Do the same for the target. From here it should be intuitively clear what's happening.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.

Similar threads