Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Thoughts on this Inverse Bijection Proof

  1. Jan 20, 2013 #1
    attachment.php?attachmentid=54893&stc=1&d=1358739001.png

    Is this sufficient?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 20, 2013 #2
    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].
     
  4. Jan 21, 2013 #3
    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 hw 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
     
  5. Jan 21, 2013 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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].
     
  6. Jan 21, 2013 #5
    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.
     
  7. Jan 21, 2013 #6
    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]
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Thoughts on this Inverse Bijection Proof
  1. Bijective function (Replies: 1)

  2. Bijection and set (Replies: 2)

  3. Bijective function (Replies: 1)

Loading...