Three questions on injective functions.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter robbins
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions Injective
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around three questions related to injective functions, specifically addressing their properties in the context of mappings between Euclidean spaces. The questions explore the implications of injectivity on dimensions and component functions, as well as seeking references for further reading on these topics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether an injective function f: Rn -> Rm implies that m >= n, with references to space-filling curves and Cantor's theorem regarding cardinality.
  • Others argue that while space-filling curves are surjective, they cannot be injective due to their self-intersecting nature.
  • There is a discussion about the injectivity of component functions in the case where f: Rn -> Rn is injective and expressed in terms of its components, with some participants suggesting that the identity map on R^2 is injective while its components are not.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the clarity of the original question, indicating that the notation used may have contributed to misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of injectivity in the discussed scenarios, and multiple competing views remain regarding the properties of injective functions and their components.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on assumptions about the nature of mappings and the definitions of injectivity, which may not be universally accepted or clarified in the discussion.

robbins
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Q1. Claim: Suppose f : Rn -> Rm is injective. Then m >= n. Is this true?

Q2. Claim: Suppose f : Rn -> Rn is injective and f(X) = [f1(X) f2(X) ... fn(X)]T. Then each fk must be injective. Is this true?

Q3. I assume the above claims are known results or have known counterexamples. Can someone direct me to a good text or reference for questions such as these?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Space-filling curves should address #1.
 
A space-filling curve is everywhere self-intersecting, and therefore can't be injective (though they are surjective). However, your point is taken: by Cantor's theorem the cardinality of [0, 1] is the same as [0, 1]^n for any finite n. And a mapping f : A -> B where |A| = |B| can be injective.
 
robbins said:
Q1. Claim: Suppose f : Rn -> Rm is injective. Then m >= n. Is this true?

All Rn's (n>0) have the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality" , hence there exist bijective maps between them.

Q2. Claim: Suppose f : Rn -> Rn is injective and f(X) = [f1(X) f2(X) ... fn(X)]T. Then each fk must be injective. Is this true?

Not sure if I understand you correctly. The identity map on R^2 is injective, but the components are the coordinate projections, which are not injective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
robbins said:
A space-filling curve is everywhere self-intersecting, and therefore can't be injective (though they are surjective). However, your point is taken: by Cantor's theorem the cardinality of [0, 1] is the same as [0, 1]^n for any finite n. And a mapping f : A -> B where |A| = |B| can be injective.

Right, sorry. I knew that they were all the same size, and I knew about space-filling curves, but I didn't check that they actually worked for the problem stated!
 
yyat said:
All Rn's (n>0) have the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality" , hence there exist bijective maps between them.



Not sure if I understand you correctly. The identity map on R^2 is injective, but the components are the coordinate projections, which are not injective.

I think he means that if the infective mapping can be written in a form where the mapping for each component only depend on the value of that component, the mapping for each component is injective.

For such a statement the hypothesis is is difficult to satisfy because it almost looks like a one dimensional curve in an n dimensional space.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Creighto said:
I think he means that if the infective mapping can be written in a form where the mapping for each component only depend on the value of that component, the mapping for each component is injective.

For such a statement the hypothesis is is difficult to satisfy because it almost looks like a one dimensional curve in an n dimensional space.

Your interpretation is correct. My original question was not stated clearly (should have used subscripts).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K