Thoughts on this Inverse Bijection Proof

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the inverse of a function being a one-to-one correspondence, specifically focusing on the injective and surjective properties of the inverse function. Participants explore definitions, provide proofs, and clarify concepts related to bijections and function compositions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the sufficiency of the initial proof and suggests that it appears more like a definition than a proof.
  • Another participant clarifies that the goal is to show that the inverse function is a one-to-one correspondence, providing a conditional statement involving elements from the domain and codomain.
  • A participant confirms the correctness of the proof for injectivity but challenges the clarity of the surjectivity proof, suggesting a specific approach to demonstrate that for every element in the codomain, there exists a corresponding element in the domain.
  • One participant expresses understanding of the injectivity proof but feels uncertain about the surjectivity aspect.
  • A later post introduces a new exercise regarding the composition of functions and their onto properties, indicating a potential need for further clarification on the concept of onto functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the correctness of the injectivity proof but express differing views on the clarity and completeness of the surjectivity proof. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to fully establish the surjectivity of the inverse function.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential missing assumptions in the proofs and the need for clearer definitions of terms like "onto" and "one-to-one correspondence." The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding among participants regarding these concepts.

blindgibson27
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
attachment.php?attachmentid=54893&stc=1&d=1358739001.png


Is this sufficient?
 

Attachments

  • Bijection Proof.png
    Bijection Proof.png
    4.3 KB · Views: 1,718
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you trying to prove, exactly? These just look like definitions to me, in which case a much simpler description of a one-to-one function would be as follows: A function [itex]f:X \rightarrow Y[/itex] is an injection if, [itex]\forall a,b \in X, \ f(a) = f(b) \implies a = b[/itex].
 
It is to proof that the inverse is a one-to-one correspondence. I think I get what you are saying though about it looking as a definition rather than a proof.

How about this..

Let [itex]f:X\rightarrow Y[/itex] be a one to one correspondence, show [itex]f^{-1}:Y\rightarrow X[/itex] is a one to one correspondence.

[itex]\exists x_{1},x_{2} \in X \mid f(x_{1}) = f(x_{2}) \Leftrightarrow x_{1}=x_{2}[/itex]

furthermore, [itex]f^{-1}(f(x_{1})) = f^{-1}(f(x_{2})) \Rightarrow f^{-1}(x_{1}) = f^{-1}(x_{1})[/itex] (by definition of function [itex]f[/itex] and one to one)

kind of stumped from this point on..
I may want to transfer this post over to the homework section though, I did post to just get a confirmation on my thoughts on bijection but it is now turning into something a bit more specific than that
 
Your proof that [itex]f^{-1}[/itex] is injective is correct. Your proof that it is surjective does not look to me like it actually says anything!

You want to prove that, if [itex]x\in X[/itex] then there exist [itex]y\in Y[/itex] such that [itex]f^{-1}(y)= x[/itex].

Given [itex]x\in X[/itex], let [itex]y= f(x)[/itex]. Then it follows that [itex]f^{-1}(y)= f^{-1}(f(x))= x[/itex].
 
That makes a lot of sense and I am following that thought process, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was just stumped on the direction of the onto.
 
In the same light, these are my thoughts on my next exercise. If I have this wrong I may need to solidify my idea on the concept a bit more.

It reads: Show that if [itex]f:X \rightarrow Y[/itex] is onto [itex]Y[/itex], and [itex]g: Y \rightarrow Z[/itex] is onto [itex]Z[/itex], then [itex]g \circ f:X \rightarrow Z[/itex] is onto [itex]Z[/itex]Prf
Given [itex]y \in Y[/itex], let [itex]y = g^{-1}(z)[/itex] and [itex]x = f^{-1}(y)[/itex]
[itex]\forall z \in Z[/itex], [itex]f^{-1}(g^{-1}(z)) = f^{-1}(y) = x[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K