Rational expression of two linear expression

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the bijectivity of the rational expression f(x) = (x + 3)/(x - 3). It is established that this function cannot be defined from R to R due to the undefined point at x = 3, thus it can only be considered from R \ {3} to R. The function is not bijective in its original form since there is no x that satisfies f(x) = 1. However, by redefining the function's codomain to exclude 1, it can be made bijective from R \ {3} to R \ {1}. The same reasoning applies to other rational expressions of the form (ax + b)/(cx + d).
franz32
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hello!

Are all rational expression of two linear expression, say f (x) =
(x + 3)/(x - 3), bijective? How will x = 3 affect the condition of a
bijective function?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First thing's first, you have to define the domain and codomain of f... Let's use your example, f(x) = (x + 3)/(x - 3). It can't be function from R to R, since f(3) isn't defined (as you said). At best, it's a function from R \ {3} to R. But it isn't bijective, since there is no x such that f(x) = 1. (I found that value by considering the equation f(x) = y <=> (x + 3)/(x - 3) = y => x = 3(y + 1)/(y - 1), which isn't defined when y = 1).

But you can "make" it bijective if you define it to be a function from R \ {3} to R \ {1}, I think?
 
Last edited:
If (x+3)/(x-3)= (y+3)/(y-3), then (x+3)(y-3)= (y+3)(x-3) or xy+ 3y- 3x- 9= xy+ 3x- 3y-9. That reduces to 3y- 3x= 3x- 3y or 6y= 6x so x= y. Yes, the function (x+3)/(x-3) is bijective from R\{3} to R\{1}.

You should be able to do exactly the same thing for (ax+b)/(cx+d).,
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K