Surjective Functions: Understanding Domain and Range

jwxie
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Consider the function f: Z -> Z, where f(x) 4x+1 for each x is an element in Z, here the range of F = { ... -8, -5, -2, 1, 4, 7...} is a proper subset of Z, so f is not an onto (surjective) function.

When one examines 3x + 1 = 8, we know x = 7/3, so there is no x in the domain Z with f(x) = 8

But if g: Q -> Q, where g(x) = 3x+1 for x is an element in Q; and h: R -> R, where h(x) = 3x+1 for x is an element in R, both g and h are surjective function.

What I want to ask whether my understanding true or false:

1. We consider g is a valid surjective function because with x = 7/3, g(x) = 8, we can write 8/1, and so we consider it as a rational number

and
2. We consider h is surjective because 7/3 is a real number (we can alswo rewrite 7/3 as demcial...)


Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that's correct. This is easily seen from the form of g^{-1} and h^{-1}.
 
jwxie said:
because with x = 7/3, g(x) = 8, we can write 8/1, and so we consider it as a rational number

and
2. We consider h is surjective because 7/3 is a real number (we can alswo rewrite 7/3 as demcial...)Thank you

Just curious. You're not wrong to refer to 7/3 as real number, but most people would call it a rational number and reserve the term real number for those numbers that cannot be expressed as a fraction. Is there a reason for the way you're using this terminology?
 
Hi SW. Thanks. In the given, it says "h: R -> R, where h(x) = 3x+1 for x is an element in R"

Yeah I got the same gut feeling about these Z,Q, R, lol...

and thank you gigasoft
 
1. We consider g is a valid surjective function because with x = 7/3, g(x) = 8, we can write 8/1, and so we consider it as a rational number

and
2. We consider h is surjective because 7/3 is a real number (we can alswo rewrite 7/3 as decimal...)

No, actually that is not correct; at least not completely, but you caught the essential idea.

g:\mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q} is a surjective function because, for any rational b, there is a rational a, such that b = g(a) and this cannot proven by just one example, and the same goes for h and the real numbers.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
578
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
551
Back
Top