Proving the inverse of a function $f$ is a function iff the function $f$ is a bijection.











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Can someone give me their opinion on how I wrote this proof also all my definitions are at the end.



Given a function $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$ if and only if $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$.



$textbf{My attempt:}(Longrightarrow)$ Assume the function $f:Ato B$ has an inverse relation $f^{-1}$ which is a function from $B$ to $A$. Then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$. Fix $a_1,a_2in A$ and $f(a_1)=f(a_2)$.Then



$i_A(a_1)=a_1$ and $i_A(a_2)=a_2$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_1)=i_A(a_1)=a_1$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_2)=i_A(a_2)=a_2$ by assumption $a_1=a_2$.



WLOG the opposite will also be true and hence $a_2=a_1$ and therefore the function $f$ is injective.
Fix $bin B$



$a=f^{-1}(b)$



$f(a)=f(f^{-1}(b))$



$=fcirc f^{-1}(b)$



$=i_B$



$=b$



Thus $f(a)=b$ so $f$ is surjective and therefore is bijective.



$(Longleftarrow)$ Assume $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$. Since $f$ is bijective, then it will be surjective and by definition 2, the domain of $f^{-1}$ would then be $B$ thus $dom(f^{-1})=B$. Also since $f$ is bijective, then it will be injective and by definition 1, $f^{-1}$ will only have one element of $A$ for each element of $B$. So by definition 4, $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$.



Definitions



$textbf{(1)}$ A relation $Rsubseteq Atimes B$ is injective if $(x_1,y) in R$ and $(x_2,y) in R$ implies $x_1=x_2$



$textbf{(2)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is a surjection from A onto B if $forall yin B$ $exists x in A (f(x)=y).$ In this case we will also call $f$ a surjection from $A$ onto $B.$



$textbf{(3)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is said to be a bijection from $A$ to $B$ if it is injective and surjective.



$textbf{(4)}$ A function $f$ from a set $A$ to a set $B$ is a relation from $A$ to $B$ for which $(((x,y_1) in f) land ((x,y_2) in $f$)) rightarrow y_1=y_2$,










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 7:49












  • Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
    – George
    Nov 22 at 8:55












  • Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
    – George
    Nov 22 at 9:00












  • I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 17:32










  • ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
    – George
    Nov 23 at 3:13















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Can someone give me their opinion on how I wrote this proof also all my definitions are at the end.



Given a function $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$ if and only if $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$.



$textbf{My attempt:}(Longrightarrow)$ Assume the function $f:Ato B$ has an inverse relation $f^{-1}$ which is a function from $B$ to $A$. Then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$. Fix $a_1,a_2in A$ and $f(a_1)=f(a_2)$.Then



$i_A(a_1)=a_1$ and $i_A(a_2)=a_2$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_1)=i_A(a_1)=a_1$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_2)=i_A(a_2)=a_2$ by assumption $a_1=a_2$.



WLOG the opposite will also be true and hence $a_2=a_1$ and therefore the function $f$ is injective.
Fix $bin B$



$a=f^{-1}(b)$



$f(a)=f(f^{-1}(b))$



$=fcirc f^{-1}(b)$



$=i_B$



$=b$



Thus $f(a)=b$ so $f$ is surjective and therefore is bijective.



$(Longleftarrow)$ Assume $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$. Since $f$ is bijective, then it will be surjective and by definition 2, the domain of $f^{-1}$ would then be $B$ thus $dom(f^{-1})=B$. Also since $f$ is bijective, then it will be injective and by definition 1, $f^{-1}$ will only have one element of $A$ for each element of $B$. So by definition 4, $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$.



Definitions



$textbf{(1)}$ A relation $Rsubseteq Atimes B$ is injective if $(x_1,y) in R$ and $(x_2,y) in R$ implies $x_1=x_2$



$textbf{(2)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is a surjection from A onto B if $forall yin B$ $exists x in A (f(x)=y).$ In this case we will also call $f$ a surjection from $A$ onto $B.$



$textbf{(3)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is said to be a bijection from $A$ to $B$ if it is injective and surjective.



$textbf{(4)}$ A function $f$ from a set $A$ to a set $B$ is a relation from $A$ to $B$ for which $(((x,y_1) in f) land ((x,y_2) in $f$)) rightarrow y_1=y_2$,










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 7:49












  • Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
    – George
    Nov 22 at 8:55












  • Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
    – George
    Nov 22 at 9:00












  • I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 17:32










  • ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
    – George
    Nov 23 at 3:13













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Can someone give me their opinion on how I wrote this proof also all my definitions are at the end.



Given a function $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$ if and only if $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$.



$textbf{My attempt:}(Longrightarrow)$ Assume the function $f:Ato B$ has an inverse relation $f^{-1}$ which is a function from $B$ to $A$. Then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$. Fix $a_1,a_2in A$ and $f(a_1)=f(a_2)$.Then



$i_A(a_1)=a_1$ and $i_A(a_2)=a_2$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_1)=i_A(a_1)=a_1$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_2)=i_A(a_2)=a_2$ by assumption $a_1=a_2$.



WLOG the opposite will also be true and hence $a_2=a_1$ and therefore the function $f$ is injective.
Fix $bin B$



$a=f^{-1}(b)$



$f(a)=f(f^{-1}(b))$



$=fcirc f^{-1}(b)$



$=i_B$



$=b$



Thus $f(a)=b$ so $f$ is surjective and therefore is bijective.



$(Longleftarrow)$ Assume $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$. Since $f$ is bijective, then it will be surjective and by definition 2, the domain of $f^{-1}$ would then be $B$ thus $dom(f^{-1})=B$. Also since $f$ is bijective, then it will be injective and by definition 1, $f^{-1}$ will only have one element of $A$ for each element of $B$. So by definition 4, $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$.



Definitions



$textbf{(1)}$ A relation $Rsubseteq Atimes B$ is injective if $(x_1,y) in R$ and $(x_2,y) in R$ implies $x_1=x_2$



$textbf{(2)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is a surjection from A onto B if $forall yin B$ $exists x in A (f(x)=y).$ In this case we will also call $f$ a surjection from $A$ onto $B.$



$textbf{(3)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is said to be a bijection from $A$ to $B$ if it is injective and surjective.



$textbf{(4)}$ A function $f$ from a set $A$ to a set $B$ is a relation from $A$ to $B$ for which $(((x,y_1) in f) land ((x,y_2) in $f$)) rightarrow y_1=y_2$,










share|cite|improve this question















Can someone give me their opinion on how I wrote this proof also all my definitions are at the end.



Given a function $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$ if and only if $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$.



$textbf{My attempt:}(Longrightarrow)$ Assume the function $f:Ato B$ has an inverse relation $f^{-1}$ which is a function from $B$ to $A$. Then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$. Fix $a_1,a_2in A$ and $f(a_1)=f(a_2)$.Then



$i_A(a_1)=a_1$ and $i_A(a_2)=a_2$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_1)=i_A(a_1)=a_1$



$f^{-1}circ f(a_2)=i_A(a_2)=a_2$ by assumption $a_1=a_2$.



WLOG the opposite will also be true and hence $a_2=a_1$ and therefore the function $f$ is injective.
Fix $bin B$



$a=f^{-1}(b)$



$f(a)=f(f^{-1}(b))$



$=fcirc f^{-1}(b)$



$=i_B$



$=b$



Thus $f(a)=b$ so $f$ is surjective and therefore is bijective.



$(Longleftarrow)$ Assume $f$ is a bijection from $A$ onto $B$. Since $f$ is bijective, then it will be surjective and by definition 2, the domain of $f^{-1}$ would then be $B$ thus $dom(f^{-1})=B$. Also since $f$ is bijective, then it will be injective and by definition 1, $f^{-1}$ will only have one element of $A$ for each element of $B$. So by definition 4, $f:Ato B$, its inverse relation $f^{-1}$ is a function from $B$ to $A$.



Definitions



$textbf{(1)}$ A relation $Rsubseteq Atimes B$ is injective if $(x_1,y) in R$ and $(x_2,y) in R$ implies $x_1=x_2$



$textbf{(2)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is a surjection from A onto B if $forall yin B$ $exists x in A (f(x)=y).$ In this case we will also call $f$ a surjection from $A$ onto $B.$



$textbf{(3)}$ We say a function $f:Ato B$, is said to be a bijection from $A$ to $B$ if it is injective and surjective.



$textbf{(4)}$ A function $f$ from a set $A$ to a set $B$ is a relation from $A$ to $B$ for which $(((x,y_1) in f) land ((x,y_2) in $f$)) rightarrow y_1=y_2$,







proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 at 7:36









1ENİGMA1

960316




960316










asked Nov 22 at 6:08









George

656




656












  • Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 7:49












  • Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
    – George
    Nov 22 at 8:55












  • Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
    – George
    Nov 22 at 9:00












  • I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 17:32










  • ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
    – George
    Nov 23 at 3:13


















  • Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 7:49












  • Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
    – George
    Nov 22 at 8:55












  • Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
    – George
    Nov 22 at 9:00












  • I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
    – Erick Wong
    Nov 22 at 17:32










  • ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
    – George
    Nov 23 at 3:13
















Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
– Erick Wong
Nov 22 at 7:49






Your first deduction is $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ might be unclear, depending on what definitions you are working from. This would typically be part of your definition of inverse function. However, you are dealing with an inverse relation that happens to be a function, and it's not immediately obvious that this is equal to the inverse function (this might be your definition of inverse function, but then $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$ is not simply true by definition). It is false in general that $f^{-1}circ f=i_A$, when $f^{-1}$ is the inverse relation of $f$ (and $circ$ is composition of relations).
– Erick Wong
Nov 22 at 7:49














Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
– George
Nov 22 at 8:55






Ahh ok, but what I am assuming for that part is that both f and f^-1 are both functions since that is what's stated in the theorem so I doubt that will be a problem. However, should I add the definition of compositional inverses in and prove both their domains would be equal?
– George
Nov 22 at 8:55














Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
– George
Nov 22 at 9:00






Well not really showing their domains are equal but that f $circ$ g= the domain of g
– George
Nov 22 at 9:00














I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
– Erick Wong
Nov 22 at 17:32




I’m not sure that addresses my concern. The question assumes that $f$ and $f^{-1}$ are functions, but here $f^{-1}$ refers to the inverse relation, not the inverse function $f^{-1}$ (which has not been assumed to exist). The inverse relation is defined by simply reversing the ordered pairs defining $f$. Unlike the inverse function, the inverse relation has no a priori properties regarding composition. Of course this assumes the usual definitions and your source text may vary.
– Erick Wong
Nov 22 at 17:32












ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
– George
Nov 23 at 3:13




ok, I decided to just rewrite that part using the relation definition for functions just to be safe.
– George
Nov 23 at 3:13










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










It follows directly from the definitions. For this, view mappings as relations.



A mapping $f:Arightarrow B$ is a relation $fsubseteq Atimes B$ which is
left-total
$$forall xin Aexists yin B[xfy]$$
and right-unique
$$forall xin Aforall y,y'in B[xAywedge xAy'rightarrow y=y'].$$
A mapping $f$ is injective (left-unique) if
$$forall x,x'in Aforall yin B[xAywedge x'Ayrightarrow x=x'].$$
A mapping $f$ is surjective (right-total) if
$$forall yin Bexists xin A[xAy].$$



So $f$ is bijective means that $f$ is left-total, right-unique, right-total, and left-unique.



Note that inverse relation $f^{-1}subseteq Btimes A$ always exists. (Going from $f$ to $f^{-1}$ the left-properties become right-properties and vice versa.)



This means that $f^{-1}$ is right-total, left-unique, left-total, and right-unique, i.e.,
$f^{-1}$ is bijective.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008796%2fproving-the-inverse-of-a-function-f-is-a-function-iff-the-function-f-is-a-bi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    It follows directly from the definitions. For this, view mappings as relations.



    A mapping $f:Arightarrow B$ is a relation $fsubseteq Atimes B$ which is
    left-total
    $$forall xin Aexists yin B[xfy]$$
    and right-unique
    $$forall xin Aforall y,y'in B[xAywedge xAy'rightarrow y=y'].$$
    A mapping $f$ is injective (left-unique) if
    $$forall x,x'in Aforall yin B[xAywedge x'Ayrightarrow x=x'].$$
    A mapping $f$ is surjective (right-total) if
    $$forall yin Bexists xin A[xAy].$$



    So $f$ is bijective means that $f$ is left-total, right-unique, right-total, and left-unique.



    Note that inverse relation $f^{-1}subseteq Btimes A$ always exists. (Going from $f$ to $f^{-1}$ the left-properties become right-properties and vice versa.)



    This means that $f^{-1}$ is right-total, left-unique, left-total, and right-unique, i.e.,
    $f^{-1}$ is bijective.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      It follows directly from the definitions. For this, view mappings as relations.



      A mapping $f:Arightarrow B$ is a relation $fsubseteq Atimes B$ which is
      left-total
      $$forall xin Aexists yin B[xfy]$$
      and right-unique
      $$forall xin Aforall y,y'in B[xAywedge xAy'rightarrow y=y'].$$
      A mapping $f$ is injective (left-unique) if
      $$forall x,x'in Aforall yin B[xAywedge x'Ayrightarrow x=x'].$$
      A mapping $f$ is surjective (right-total) if
      $$forall yin Bexists xin A[xAy].$$



      So $f$ is bijective means that $f$ is left-total, right-unique, right-total, and left-unique.



      Note that inverse relation $f^{-1}subseteq Btimes A$ always exists. (Going from $f$ to $f^{-1}$ the left-properties become right-properties and vice versa.)



      This means that $f^{-1}$ is right-total, left-unique, left-total, and right-unique, i.e.,
      $f^{-1}$ is bijective.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        It follows directly from the definitions. For this, view mappings as relations.



        A mapping $f:Arightarrow B$ is a relation $fsubseteq Atimes B$ which is
        left-total
        $$forall xin Aexists yin B[xfy]$$
        and right-unique
        $$forall xin Aforall y,y'in B[xAywedge xAy'rightarrow y=y'].$$
        A mapping $f$ is injective (left-unique) if
        $$forall x,x'in Aforall yin B[xAywedge x'Ayrightarrow x=x'].$$
        A mapping $f$ is surjective (right-total) if
        $$forall yin Bexists xin A[xAy].$$



        So $f$ is bijective means that $f$ is left-total, right-unique, right-total, and left-unique.



        Note that inverse relation $f^{-1}subseteq Btimes A$ always exists. (Going from $f$ to $f^{-1}$ the left-properties become right-properties and vice versa.)



        This means that $f^{-1}$ is right-total, left-unique, left-total, and right-unique, i.e.,
        $f^{-1}$ is bijective.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        It follows directly from the definitions. For this, view mappings as relations.



        A mapping $f:Arightarrow B$ is a relation $fsubseteq Atimes B$ which is
        left-total
        $$forall xin Aexists yin B[xfy]$$
        and right-unique
        $$forall xin Aforall y,y'in B[xAywedge xAy'rightarrow y=y'].$$
        A mapping $f$ is injective (left-unique) if
        $$forall x,x'in Aforall yin B[xAywedge x'Ayrightarrow x=x'].$$
        A mapping $f$ is surjective (right-total) if
        $$forall yin Bexists xin A[xAy].$$



        So $f$ is bijective means that $f$ is left-total, right-unique, right-total, and left-unique.



        Note that inverse relation $f^{-1}subseteq Btimes A$ always exists. (Going from $f$ to $f^{-1}$ the left-properties become right-properties and vice versa.)



        This means that $f^{-1}$ is right-total, left-unique, left-total, and right-unique, i.e.,
        $f^{-1}$ is bijective.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 22 at 16:34

























        answered Nov 22 at 9:34









        Wuestenfux

        2,9121410




        2,9121410






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008796%2fproving-the-inverse-of-a-function-f-is-a-function-iff-the-function-f-is-a-bi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Index of /

            Tribalistas

            Listed building