Spivak chapter 3 problem 24 - proof of a composition

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the existence of a function f such that f(g(x)) = x, given that g is a one-to-one function where g(x) ≠ g(y) for x ≠ y. The conclusion drawn is that f can be defined as a collection of ordered pairs (g(x), x), establishing that f serves as the inverse of g. The proof is validated by the uniqueness of g(x), confirming that no contradictions arise from the definition of a function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of functions and their definitions
  • Knowledge of one-to-one functions (injective functions)
  • Familiarity with the concept of inverse functions
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of injective functions in detail
  • Learn about the construction of inverse functions
  • Explore formal proof techniques in mathematical logic
  • Investigate the implications of function composition in advanced mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding function properties and proofs, particularly in the context of one-to-one functions and their inverses.

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   Reactions: Buffu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K