Surjective Functions: Understanding Domain and Range

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jwxie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Surjective
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of surjective functions, specifically examining the functions defined from integers, rationals, and reals to themselves. Participants explore the conditions under which these functions are considered surjective, with a focus on the implications of domain and range.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that the function f: Z -> Z defined by f(x) = 4x + 1 is not surjective because its range does not cover all integers.
  • Another participant argues that the function g: Q -> Q defined by g(x) = 3x + 1 is surjective since for any rational number, there exists a corresponding rational input that maps to it.
  • A similar argument is made for the function h: R -> R, where it is stated that it is surjective because real numbers can also be expressed in decimal form.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology used to describe numbers, particularly the distinction between rational and real numbers, with one participant questioning the use of "real number" for 7/3.
  • Another participant challenges the completeness of the previous claims, emphasizing that surjectivity cannot be established by a single example and that a more general proof is necessary for both g and h.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the surjectivity of the functions discussed. While some agree on the surjectivity of g and h, others point out that the reasoning provided may not be sufficient, indicating unresolved aspects of the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the arguments presented, particularly regarding the need for general proofs of surjectivity rather than reliance on specific examples. The discussion also highlights potential confusion in terminology related to number classifications.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K