Set Theory Proof: Prove g is Surj. if g∘f is Surjective

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if the composition of two functions, g∘f, is surjective, then g must also be surjective. The proof utilizes the contrapositive approach, demonstrating that for every element z in the codomain Z, there exists an element y in the domain B such that g(y) = z, confirming the surjectivity of g. The participants agree that the proof is valid, with a suggestion to phrase it as "let y = f(x)" for clarity. The relationship between the sets A, B, and C is also established, reinforcing the conclusion that g is surjective.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of surjective functions
  • Familiarity with function composition
  • Basic knowledge of set theory
  • Ability to work with contrapositive proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of surjective functions in depth
  • Learn about function composition and its implications in set theory
  • Explore contrapositive proofs in mathematical logic
  • Investigate the relationships between sets and functions in advanced mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying abstract algebra, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of functions and set theory proofs.

anonymity
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
Prove that if g\circf is surjective, then g must be surjective.

I know that one valid proof of this statement is acquired via the contrapositive, what I am not sure of is if the following proof is flawed (if it is, please say why):

Suppose z\inZ. Since g \circ f is surjective, there exists x\inX such that g\circ f(x) = z. Equivalently, for f(x) = y, we have that g(y) = z. Now for any z\inZ there exists y = f(x) such that z = g(y), and that g is surjective.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I prefer using sets to prove it.

If gof is surjective : f:A to B and g: B to C so therefore;

g(f(A)) = C. And we also know that f(A)⊆B, now try to complete the proof using what u know in sets.
 
Last edited:
anonymity said:
Prove that if g\circf is surjective, then g must be surjective.

I know that one valid proof of this statement is acquired via the contrapositive, what I am not sure of is if the following proof is flawed (if it is, please say why):

Suppose z\inZ. Since g \circ f is surjective, there exists x\inX such that g\circ f(x) = z. Equivalently, for f(x) = y, we have that g(y) = z. Now for any z\inZ there exists y = f(x) such that z = g(y), and that g is surjective.
Yes, this is a perfectly valid proof. Although, I would say "let y= f(x)" rather than "for f(x)= y".
 
HallsofIvy said:
Yes, this is a perfectly valid proof. Although, I would say "let y= f(x)" rather than "for f(x)= y".

I believe this is easier proof if he's familiar to sets.
g(f(A)) = C.
We also know: f(A)⊆B, which means: g(f(A))⊆g(B). g(B)⊆C, by definition.

All together:
C = g(f(A)) ⊆ g(B) ⊆ C which implies: C = g(B)

That's correct i believe right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K