MHB You're welcome! Glad I could help. (Thumbs up)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of the inverse of a relation, specifically showing that the domain of the inverse equals the range of the original relation, and vice versa. Participants confirm that the first three identities are correct, while also discussing the proof for the fourth identity, which states that the inverse of the inverse relation returns the original relation. A detailed explanation is provided for each identity, including the use of logical implications to establish equivalences. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of understanding regarding the proofs presented.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Wave)

Let $R$ be a relation.

Show the following sentences:

  1. $dom(R^{-1})=rng(R)$
  2. $rng(R^{-1})=dom(R)$
  3. $fld(R^{-1})=fld(R)$
  4. $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$

That's what I have tried:

  1. Let $x \in dom(R^{-1})$. Then $\exists y$ such that $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R \Rightarrow x \in rng(R)$.

    So, $dom(R^{-1}) \subset rng(R)$.

    Let $y \in rng(R)$. Then $\exists x$ such that $<x,y> \in R \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow y \in dom(R^{-1})$.

    So, $rng(R) \subset dom(R^{-1})$.

    Therefore, $rng(R)=dom(R^{-1})$.
  2. Let $y \in rng(R^{-1})$. Then $\exists x$ such that $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R \Rightarrow y \in dom R$.

    So, $rng(R^{-1}) \subset dom R$

    Let $y \in dom R$. Then $\exists y$ such that $<x,y> ain R \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow x \in rng(R^{-1})$

    So, $dom R \subset rng(R^{-1})$.

    Therefore, $dom R = rng(R^{-1})$.
  3. $$fld(R^{-1})=dom(R^{-1}) \cup rng (R^{-1})=rng(R) \cup dom R$$
    $$fld(R)=dom R \cup rng(R)$$

Is that what I have tried right or have I done something wrong? (Thinking)

Also, how could we prove the fourth identity $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$ ? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Number 1-3 are correct. Number 4 is even easier than 1 or 2.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Number 1-3 are correct. Number 4 is even easier than 1 or 2.

Is it maybe like that? (Thinking)

Let $<y,x> \in (R^{-1})^{-1}$. Then: $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R$.

So, $(R^{-1})^{-1} \subset R$.

Let $<x,y> \in R$. Then: $<y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <x,y> \in (R^{-1})^{-1}$.

So, $R \subset (R^{-1})^{-1}$.

Therefore, $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$.

(Thinking)
 
Yes. I would write it as a chain of equivalences:
\[
\langle x,y\rangle\in R\iff \langle y,x\rangle\in R^{-1}\iff \langle x,y\rangle\in(R^{-1})^{-1}.
\]
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Yes. I would write it as a chain of equivalences:
\[
\langle x,y\rangle\in R\iff \langle y,x\rangle\in R^{-1}\iff \langle x,y\rangle\in(R^{-1})^{-1}.
\]

Nice! I understand! (Nod) Thanks a lot! (Smile)
 
First trick I learned this one a long time ago and have used it to entertain and amuse young kids. Ask your friend to write down a three-digit number without showing it to you. Then ask him or her to rearrange the digits to form a new three-digit number. After that, write whichever is the larger number above the other number, and then subtract the smaller from the larger, making sure that you don't see any of the numbers. Then ask the young "victim" to tell you any two of the digits of the...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K