MHB Proving Onto and 1-1 Properties of Function Compositions

  • Thread starter Thread starter JProgrammer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving theorems related to function compositions, specifically that if functions F and G are both one-to-one (1-1) or onto, then their composition G∘F retains these properties. Part a has been proven, establishing that G∘F is 1-1 if both F and G are 1-1. For part b, it is clarified that to show G∘F is onto, one must demonstrate that for every z in Z, there exists an x in X such that G(F(x)) equals z, utilizing the onto properties of both F and G. Part c asserts that if F and G are both 1-1 correspondences, then G∘F is also a 1-1 correspondence, which follows directly from the proofs of parts a and b. The conversation emphasizes the need for precise definitions and logical progression in mathematical proofs.
JProgrammer
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I am trying to prove this function theorem:

Let F:X→Y and G:Y→Z be functions. Then
a. If F and G are both 1 – 1 then G∘F is 1 – 1.
b. If F and G are both onto then G∘F is onto.
c. If F and G are both 1 – 1 correspondences then G∘F is a 1 – 1 correspondence.

Part a has already been proven, but I need to prove parts b and c. This is as far as I got on part b:Part b: If F is onto, then that means that each y has at least one x. If G is onto, then that each z has at least one y.

I do know that I need to prove b before c can be proven.

If someone could show me how b and c would be proven I would really appreciate it.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JProgrammer said:
I am trying to prove this function theorem:

Let F:X→Y and G:Y→Z be functions. Then
a. If F and G are both 1 – 1 then G∘F is 1 – 1.
b. If F and G are both onto then G∘F is onto.
c. If F and G are both 1 – 1 correspondences then G∘F is a 1 – 1 correspondence.
...
Part b: If F is onto, then that means that each y has at least one x. If G is onto, then that each z has at least one y.
It is incorrect to say "each y has at least one x". Here $x$ and $y$ are elements of sets $X$, $Y$, $Z$. They can very well be numbers. What does it mean to say, for example, that 5 has 3?

The fact that $G\circ F$ is onto means, by definition, that for every $z\in Z$ there exists an $x\in X$ such that
\[
(G\circ F)(x)\overset{\text{def}}{=}G(F(x))=z.\qquad (*)
\]
Proofs of statements of the form "For every $z\in Z$..." start with the phrase "Fix an arbitrary $z\in Z$". We know that $G$ is onto, i.e., for each $z\in Z$ there exists a $y\in Y$ such that $G(y)=z$. Apply this fact to the $z$ we fixed. This gives us some $y\in Y$ such that $G(y)=z$. Now apply the fact that $F$ is onto to that $y$ and recall that our goal is (*).
 
Let z be any member of Z. Then, since G is onto, there exist y in Y such that G(y)= z. Further, since F is onto there exist ...

For (c), what is the definition of "1-1 correspondence"?
 
HallsofIvy said:
For (c), what is the definition of "1-1 correspondence"?
1 -1 correspondence means that the function is both 1 - 1 and onto.
 
JProgrammer said:
1 -1 correspondence means that the function is both 1 - 1 and onto.
Good! So once you have done (a) and (b), (c) follows immediately.
 
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...