Working with the inverses of composite functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Esran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composite Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the manipulation of inverses of composite functions, specifically examining whether the equation (g o f)-1(A) = f-1(g-1(A)) holds true for given functions f and g and a subset A of Z. Participants explore the definitions and implications of these functions and their inverses.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about manipulating the inverses of composite functions and seeks guidance on proving the theorem.
  • Another participant provides a hint regarding the relationship between the elements of the sets involved, suggesting a breakdown of the definitions of f and g.
  • There is a discussion about the correct interpretation of the expressions involving the inverses, with participants questioning whether certain statements should involve f-1 or f.
  • Participants work through the implications of the definitions, attempting to show that the two expressions for the inverses are equivalent.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the relationships between the elements of the sets and the functions, with an emphasis on rewriting the expressions clearly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions and the approach to proving the theorem, but there is ongoing uncertainty about the correct manipulation of the expressions and whether they are equivalent.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion about translating statements involving inverses and composite functions, indicating potential limitations in their understanding of the definitions and relationships between the functions.

Esran
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Let f:X->Y and g:Y->Z be functions. Suppose A is a subset of Z. I'm wondering whether (g o f)-1(A)=f-1(g-1(A)).

I'm lost as to where to go with this problem. I know I need to do something using images, but manipulating the inverses of composite functions is proving to be very confusing; I don't know how to properly translate these functions into terms that match up with my definitions, which are as follows:

1) Let f:X->Y be a function: for a subset A of X, the set f(A)={y in Y: y=f(x) for some x in A}.

2) For a subset C of Y, the set f-1(C) = {x in X: f(x) is in C}.

Can you please point me in the right direction? I'm sure that if I could just grasp how to prove this theorem, I'd understand inverses so much better.

Thank you for your time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Esran said:
Let f:X->Y and g:Y->Z be functions. Suppose A is a subset of Z. I'm wondering whether (g o f)-1(A)=f-1(g-1(A)).


Hi Esran! :smile:

(have an exists: ∃ and an in/epsilon: ε :smile:)

Hint: x ε f-1(g-1(A))

means ∃ y ε g-1(A) with f(y) = x

means ∃ z ε A with … ? :smile:
 
x ε f-1(g-1(A))

means ∃ y ε g-1(A) with f(y) = x (shouldn't this be f-1(y) = x?)

means ∃ z ε A with g(y) = z.

I need to show that somehow, the above implies x ε (g o f)-1(A), and vice versa.

So, x ε (g o f)-1(A)

means ∃ z ε A with (g o f)(x) = z or g(f(x)) = z?

means ∃ y ε f(x) with g(y) = z?

I'm lost again on how to translate this statement. What do I do when the inverse is on the outside of a composite function?
 
Last edited:
Esran said:
x ε f-1(g-1(A))

means ∃ y ε g-1(A) with f(y) = x (shouldn't this be f-1(y) = x?)

oops! :redface:

yes … I meant to type: f(x) = y. :smile:
means ∃ z ε A with g(y) = z.

I need to show that somehow, the above implies x ε (g o f)-1(A), and vice versa.

So, x ε (g o f)-1(A)

means ∃ z ε A with (g o f)(x) = z or g(f(x)) = z?


That's right! :smile:, just stop there

you have two expressions, (g o f)-1(A) and f-1(g-1(A)), and you want to prove that they're the same.

So you rewrite each in the form "given x ε …"

You have:
i] ∃ z ε A with g(f(x)) = z

ii] ∃ y ε g-1(A) with y = f(x)
and ∃ z ε A with g(y) = z

Don't you see, that once you write it out clearly like that, you have the answer? :wink:
 
Alright! I see it now. Thank you. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
627