Question about one-to-one and onto with functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingerd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of functions, specifically focusing on whether a given function is one-to-one and onto. The original poster presents a piecewise function defined for integers and questions the reasoning behind its classification as onto.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of onto functions and question the relevance of the specific choice of 2y in demonstrating that the function is onto. They discuss the existence of integers that satisfy the function's output for any given integer input.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the definitions of one-to-one and onto functions. Some have provided insights into how to find corresponding inputs for given outputs, while others are clarifying the implications of the function's structure. There is a mix of interpretations regarding the necessity of specific examples in proving onto properties.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a potential confusion regarding the notation used in the original post, where f(x) is referenced instead of g(x). Additionally, the discussion includes a broader example of another function to illustrate the concepts further.

kingerd
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
the following is a problem in the book.

[tex] f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}(x+1),&\mbox{ if x is odd}<br /> \\\frac{1}{2}x, & \mbox{ if x is even}\end{array}\right[/tex]

the solutions that's given is This function is onto because, for any [tex]y\epsilonZ, g(2y)=y.[/tex] It is not one-to-one because g(1) = g(2).

I understand where the numbers come from stating why it's not one-to-one, but I'm a little confused about the onto part, in that they got the 2
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is an integers-to-integers function.
Now, given any integer y, does there exist an integer x so that g(x)=y?
The number 2y is certainly an integer, it can qualify as an x, and g(2y) is indeed equal to y.
Thus, you have shown that g is onto.
 
so the fact that they use 2y is irrelevant just so long as g(x)=y
 
kingerd said:
so the fact that they use 2y is irrelevant just so long as g(x)=y
For any y, there exist x so that g(x)= y.

I wouldn't say the 2y was "irrelevant", a good way to show such and x exists is to tell how to find it! (And your original post had f(x), not g(x).)

What they are really doing is this:
Given such a y, how would you find the corresponding x?
If f(x)= y then either [itex]\frac{1}{2}x= y[/itex] in which case x= 2y (and is even) or [itex]\frac{1}{2}(x+1)= y[/itex] in which case x+ 1= 2y and x is odd. That shows that not only is there such an x, there are 2! Which is why it is not "one to one".

Here's another example: show that g(x), from R to R, defined by g(x)= x is x<= 1,
g(x)= 2x-1 if x> 1, is both one-to-one and onto.
To show that it is one to one, assume that g(x1[/sup])= g(x2). Because of the way the function is defined we would really need to consider 4 possibilities:
If x1, x2 are both less than or equal to 1, then we must have g(x1)= x1[/sup]= g(x2)= x2 so x1= x2- that was easy!
If x1, x2 are both greater than 1, then we must have g(x1)= 2x1-1= g(x2= 2x1-1 and again get x1= x2
The third possibility is x1[/sup] less than or equal to 1, x2> 1 so that g(x1)= x1= g(x2)= 2x2- 1. But if x2> 1 then 2x2> 2 so x1= 2x2-1> 1, a contradiction- that can't happen.
The fourth possibility is that x1> 1 while x2 is less than or equal to 1. Just reverse x1 and x2in the above to see that that can't happen.
If g(x1)= g(x2) then x1= x2 so g is one-to-one.

To see that g is "onto", assume that y is any real number and find x so that g(x)= y.
There are now two possiblities. If y is less than or equal to 1 then obviously, x= y works. If y> 1, does there exist x> 1 so that 2x-1= y?
Solving for x, we get x= (y+1)/2. But is that >1? Yes, if y> 1 then y+1> 2 and so (y+1)/2> 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K