Spivak chapter 3 problem 24 - proof of a composition

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the existence of a function f such that f(g(x)) = x, given that g is a one-to-one function. The key argument is that since g(x) is unique for each x, one can define f as a collection of ordered pairs (g(x), x), thus satisfying the definition of a function. Concerns are raised about the rigor of the proof, with the author feeling that their reasoning may be flawed or incomplete. However, it is concluded that the proof is valid, affirming the existence of the inverse function f for the function g. The discussion emphasizes the relationship between one-to-one functions and their inverses in function composition.
Andraz Cepic
Messages
31
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Suppose g is a function with the property that g(x) =/= g(y) if x=/=y.
Prove that there is a function f such that f( g(x) ) = x. (The composition)

Homework Equations


Definition of a function, collection of ordered pairs;
g(x) =/= g(y) if x=/=y;
x → g(x) → x (The composition that has to be proven).

The Attempt at a Solution


Since all g(x) are actually unique, that means there is a function f whose domain is a collection of all g(x) and that assigns the value x to all g(x), so that f is a collection of ordered pairs of the form (g(x), x). In other words, there is no contradiction from definition of a function, thus such a function does exist.

My problem is that I am extremely careful with proofs and to be honest this "proof" of mine seems lazy and wrong and full of holes. The part where I assume that f can assign x to g(x) seems very sketchy. I also found out that this is somehow a proof that there is an inverse function f for function g, if g(x) are all unique.

So I wonder if this is actually the right way of doing things, or did I miss sth crucial and my "proof" has bunch of holes in it or is it even plain miss from the start.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Andraz Cepic said:
Since all g(x) are actually unique, that means there is a function f whose domain is a collection of all g(x) and that assigns the value x to all g(x), so that f is a collection of ordered pairs of the form (g(x), x). In other words, there is no contradiction from definition of a function, thus such a function does exist.
I would say it is correct.
 
Thank you :)
 
  • Like
Likes Buffu

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top