Question Regarding Sets and Functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Diffy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of functions, specifically the definition and implications of the inverse of a function when it is not bijective. Participants explore the inclusion of a subset in the context of functions and their inverses, addressing both definitions and proofs related to these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the inverse function is defined if the function is not a bijection, suggesting confusion about the existence of an inverse.
  • Another participant proposes a definition of the inverse function as the set of elements in the domain that map to elements in a given subset of the codomain, regardless of whether the function is injective or surjective.
  • A participant shares a personal anecdote about a similar experience in their graduate studies, emphasizing the common misunderstanding regarding the necessity of a function being one-to-one for the definition of its inverse.
  • Clarification is provided that the inverse of a function can be defined without the function being one-to-one, using a specific example of a non-injective function.
  • A participant seeks feedback on their proof regarding the inclusion of a subset in the context of the function and its inverse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definition of the inverse function and the proof regarding the inclusion of a subset, with one participant affirming the correctness of another's definition and proof. However, there is an underlying uncertainty about the implications of non-bijective functions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of understanding regarding the definitions of functions and their inverses, particularly in the context of injectivity and surjectivity. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for misunderstanding in mathematical proofs related to these concepts.

Diffy
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
A_0 \subset f^{-1} (f (A_0))

This inclusion is an equality if f is injective.

What I can't understand is how it is even defined if f isn't a bijection. If it is not a bijection, then there is no inverse function. Is there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok I think I got it. If we don't know that f:A \rightarrow B is bijective or even surjective/injective, we want f^{-1} to be \{ a | f(a) \in B\}

is this correct?

Let f:A \rightarrow B and A_0 \subset A

Say we want to show that A_0 \subset f^{-1}( f(A_0))

Suppose we have
a \in A_0
then by the definition of a function f(a) = b for some b \in B
f^{-1}(b) then is \{ c | f(c) =b\} since we have already established that f(a) = b it is clearly the case that a \in \{ c | f(c) =b\} = f^{-1}(f(a)). Therefore, since we choose a arbitraraly A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0))

Is this right?
 
Okay, I won't laugh at you too hard!

The very first time I had to present a proof before the class in a graduate class it was something exactly like this! I went through the whole thing, assured that I was exactly right! I did the whole proof assuming that f HAD an inverse! Very embarrasing! It's probably the one thing I remember more than anything else from my graduate student days!

f-1(A), where A is a set, is defined as {x| f(x) is in A}. No, it is not required that f be "one-to-one"! If, for example, f(x)= x2, where f is surely not one-to-one, then f-1([-1,4]= {all x such that f(x) is in that set}. That, of course is the interval [-2, 2] since f(-2)= f(2)= 4 and all numbers between -2 and 2 are taken to numbers between 0 and 4 and so between -1 and 4.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Okay, I won't laugh at you too hard!

Wow, that's discouraging.

Anyways, I think I said your exact definition of f^{-1} in my second post. Where I said if f:A \rightarrow B "we want f^{-1} to be \{a | f(a) \in B \}"

How was my proof of A_0 \subset f^{-1} (f(A_0))? Was that any good? If not I hope it was at least, yet again, humorous...
 
Both your definition and proof are correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K