Some basic definition questions of set theory

Click For Summary
To prove that the composition of two surjective functions, g dot f: A->C, is also surjective, it is essential to demonstrate that for every element c in C, there exists an element a in A such that g(f(a)) = c. The reasoning provided states that since f maps every element of A onto B and g maps every element of B onto C, it follows that each c in C is reachable through some a in A. The discussion emphasizes the importance of precise language in mathematical proofs, particularly avoiding vague phrases. Overall, the proof hinges on the established definitions of surjectivity for both functions.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
I have to prove the following theorem,

1) If f:A->B is a surjection, and g:B->C is a surjection then g dot f:a->C is a surjection

Well this makes sense and I am not sure how to PROVE it

Is it sufficient to say the following

if for every element b of B, there exists a element a of A such that f(a)=b and same for B->C for g(b)=c is true, Then

for every element of c in C, there must exist an a of A such that g(f(a))=c since for every b in B there exists f(a)=b, and we know g(b)= c is true for every element of c,
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes that's the right idea though the phrase 'we know g(b)=c is true for every..' is, erm, not what you want to write, but I think that is just the sentence structure nothing more.

You must show that for all c in C, there is an a in A such that gf(a)=c, which is what you've done.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K