Showing that inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Isomorphism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of isomorphisms in group theory, specifically focusing on the demonstration that the inverse of an isomorphism is also an isomorphism. Participants explore the necessity of injectivity and surjectivity in this context, examining the implications of these properties for the homomorphic nature of the inverse function.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that to show ##\phi^{-1}## is a homomorphism, it suffices to use the surjectivity of ##\phi## and its property as a homomorphism.
  • Others argue that injectivity is implicitly used when justifying that if ##\phi(u) = \phi(v)##, then it follows that ##u = v##, which is necessary for the validity of the equations presented.
  • A participant provides definitions of injectivity and surjectivity in terms of morphisms, suggesting that these concepts are foundational to understanding the properties of isomorphisms.
  • Another participant emphasizes that discussing inverse functions necessitates the function being injective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of injectivity in the context of demonstrating that the inverse of an isomorphism is also an isomorphism. There is no consensus on whether injectivity is required for the argument presented.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of injectivity and surjectivity are not fully explored, and the discussion does not resolve the implications of these properties on the overall argument regarding isomorphisms.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
Let ##G## and ##H## be groups, and let ##\phi : G \to H## be an isomorphism. I want to show that ##\phi^{-1} : H \to G## is also an isomorphism. First, note that ##\phi^{-1}## is clearly a bijection as ##\phi## is its inverse. Second, let ##a,b \in H##. Since ##\phi## is surjective, there exist ##x,y \in G## s.t ##a = \phi(x)## and ##b = \phi(y)##. Then ##\phi^{-1}(ab) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(x) \phi(y)) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(xy)) = xy = \phi^{-1} (\phi (x)) \phi^{-1} (\phi(y)) = \phi^{-1}(a) \phi^{-1}(b)##.

Here is my question, why did I only have to use the fact that ##\phi## is surjective and a homomorphism in showing that ##\phi^{-1}## is a homomorphism? Why didn't I have to use that it is injective?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
Let ##G## and ##H## be groups, and let ##\phi : G \to H## be an isomorphism. I want to show that ##\phi^{-1} : H \to G## is also an isomorphism. First, note that ##\phi^{-1}## is clearly a bijection as ##\phi## is its inverse. Second, let ##a,b \in H##. Since ##\phi## is surjective, there exist ##x,y \in G## s.t ##a = \phi(x)## and ##b = \phi(y)##. Then ##\phi^{-1}(ab) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(x) \phi(y)) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(xy)) \stackrel{(*)}{=} xy \stackrel{(*)}{=} \phi^{-1} (\phi (x)) \phi^{-1} (\phi(y)) = \phi^{-1}(a) \phi^{-1}(b)##.

Here is my question, why did I only have to use the fact that ##\phi## is surjective and a homomorphism in showing that ##\phi^{-1}## is a homomorphism? Why didn't I have to use that it is injective?
You did use it. Let's assume ##\phi ## is only surjective and we have ##\phi(u)=\phi(v)##. Then how could we justify ##u=\phi^{-1}(\phi(u))=\phi^{-1}(\phi(v))=v## which you used at the equations I marked with ##(*)\,?## So we actually used ##\phi(u)=\phi(v) \Longrightarrow u=v## which is precisely injectivity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97
One can define injectivity and surjectivity only by means of morphisms. Let's take the example above: ##\phi\, : \,G \longrightarrow H##.

Then ##\phi ## is injective, if and only if for any functions ##\varphi , \psi \, : \, K \longrightarrow G## from a set ##K## with ##\phi \varphi = \phi \psi## follows ##\varphi = \psi \,.##

And ##\phi ## is surjective, if and only if for any functions ##\varphi , \psi \, : \, H \longrightarrow L## to a set ##L## with ##\varphi \phi = \psi \phi## follows ##\varphi = \psi \,.##

If you like you can show the equivalence of these definitions to the usual ones as an exercise. So injectivity is left cancellation and surjectivity right cancellation. For an isomorphisms we need, resp. have both. That's why I said in an earlier thread, that both directions are needed: ##\phi \phi^{-1} = \operatorname{id}_H## and ##\phi^{-1} \phi = \operatorname{id}_G##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97
You can't talk about inverse functions if the function is not injective...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K