Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I found part of my answer here: If g(f(x)) is one-to-one (injective) show f(x) is also one-to-one (given that...); however I wanted to flesh out the last two statements I had in a proposition in my notes.

Proposition: Let $f: A \rightarrow B$ and $g: B \rightarrow C$. Then:

(i) If $g \circ f$ is one-to-one, then $f$ is one-to-one.

(ii) If $g \circ f$ is onto, then $g$ is onto.

Proof: (i) Suppose $f(x)=f(y)$ for some $x,y$.

Since $g \circ f$ is one-to-one: $$g\circ f(x) = g\circ f(y) \Rightarrow x=y,\forall x,y \in A.$$

Therefore $f$ must be one-to-one.

(ii) Since $g \circ f (x)$ is onto, then for every $c \in C$ there exists an $a \in A$ such that $c=g(f(a))$. Then there exists a $b \in B$ with $b=f(a)$ such that $g(b)=c$. Thus g is onto.

I wanted to confirm that these proofs are both correct for my peace of mind (as they weren't proven in class).

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Both of your proofs are correct.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. I'm trying to flesh out all the details on various propositions that my professor had left for me to prove. I'm finding that I am getting stuck on these relatively short ideas. –  emka Sep 28 '12 at 10:02
add comment

I've never taken an analysis course but I don't believe that your first proof is correct. Since take for example $f=x^2$, which isn't one-to-one. $g \circ f (-2)$ and $g \circ f (2)$ would be equal, since in both cases it is $g(4)$ and $g$ is a function. So $x$ would not have to equal $y$ and thus $f$ does not have a requirement of being one-to-one for the composition $g(f(x))$ to be one to one. However I do believe that $g$ would have to be one to one for that to be the case. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just my two cents.

share|improve this answer
    
I would just like to point out that what Alex said is not the case. In that case $g \circ f$ would not be one-to-one. You need the initial assumption to be true. Yes inputs of $-2$ and $2$ would both lead to $g(4)$ but that comes from $g(f(-2))=g(f(2))=g(4)$. Therefore the composition is not one-to-one and that proof tells you nothing. –  user92889 Sep 3 '13 at 12:41
    
As @kb414 notes above, your argument actually gives that $g \circ f$ is not one-to-one precisely because $f$ is not one-to-one. (And thus also contains the essential elements of a general proof that if $f$ is not one-to-one, then neither is $g \circ f$.) –  Arthur Fischer Sep 3 '13 at 13:43
add comment

On the first one i would say since g composed of f is one-to-one, if g(f(x))=g(f(y)) for all x,y in A then x=y. By definition of f then there exist some value f(x) and f(y) in B. Then because we already noted x=y. F(x) must equal F(y) by the definition of a function.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.