Showing that inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism

In summary, we want to show that if ##\phi: G \to H## is an isomorphism, then ##\phi^{-1}: H \to G## is also an isomorphism. To do this, we need to show that ##\phi^{-1}## is a bijection and a homomorphism. We only need to use the fact that ##\phi## is surjective and a homomorphism to show that ##\phi^{-1}## is a homomorphism, as the injectivity of ##\phi## is already implied by the definition of an isomorphism.
  • #1
Mr Davis 97
1,462
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
  • #2
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 Mr Davis 97
  • #3
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 Mr Davis 97
  • #4
You can't talk about inverse functions if the function is not injective...
 

What is an isomorphism?

An isomorphism is a mathematical concept that refers to a type of function or mapping between two mathematical objects (such as groups, rings, or vector spaces) that preserves certain properties, such as structure and operations.

What is the inverse of an isomorphism?

The inverse of an isomorphism is a function that undoes the mapping of the original isomorphism. It essentially "reverses" the mapping, taking the output of the original isomorphism and returning the input.

What does it mean to show that the inverse of an isomorphism is also an isomorphism?

This means that the inverse function has the same properties as the original isomorphism, and therefore, it is also a valid isomorphism. This is an important property to prove in mathematical proofs and can be used to simplify or solve equations.

How do you show that the inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism?

To show that the inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism, you must demonstrate that it has the same properties as the original isomorphism. This can typically be done using mathematical proofs and equations, showing that the inverse function preserves the structure and operations of the original isomorphism.

Why is it important to prove that the inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism?

Proving that the inverse of an isomorphism is also an isomorphism is important because it ensures that the original isomorphism is reversible and that both the original function and its inverse are valid isomorphisms. This property can be used in various mathematical applications and is crucial in understanding the relationships between different mathematical objects.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
795
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
877
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
923
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
820
Back
Top