Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm doing exercise on discrete mathematics and I'm stuck with question:

If $f:Y\to Z$ is an invertible function, and $g:X\to Y$ is an invertible function, then the inverse of the composition $(f \circ\ g)$ is given by $(f \circ\ g) ^{-1} = g^{-1} \circ\ f^{-1}$.

I've no idea how to prove this, please help me by give me some reference or hint to its solution.

share|cite|improve this question
To prove that $F^{-1}$ is an inverse of a function $F$ you need to show that $F^{-1}\circ F(x)=x$ and also $F\circ F^{-1}(x)=x$ – Leandro Aug 13 '10 at 14:39
Please try to use more descriptive titles when asking questions. – Akhil Mathew Aug 13 '10 at 15:11
@Akhil: could you suggest more descriptive title for this question please, I'm not very good in English. – idonno Aug 13 '10 at 17:49
@Pete: It's been edited since when I posted the comment. – Akhil Mathew Aug 13 '10 at 23:20
@Akhil: It has had this title (except with "proof" instead of "prove") even before your comment. I think what happened is that when you saw the question on the main page, the math was not rendered immediately, and you saw "How to proof ?". – ShreevatsaR Aug 14 '10 at 6:09
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Use the definition of an inverse and associativity of composition to show that the right hand side is the inverse of $(f \circ g)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Right hand side mean both (f o g) -1 and g-1 o f-1 ? – idonno Aug 13 '10 at 14:39
I think the idea of Dylan is that if you call $h=f\circ g$ then we have that $h\circ (g^{-1} \circ f^{-1}) = (f\circ g) \circ (g^{-1} \circ f^{-1}) = Id$, using the associativity of composition, which shows that $g^{-1} \circ f^{-1}$ is the inverse of $h$. – Ismael Aug 14 '10 at 0:30

You put your socks first and then your shoes but you take off your shoes before taking off your socks.

share|cite|improve this answer
While funny, I think this as a stand-alone comment, is not quite helpful. If you briefly showed how it was related however, I think it would be a very useful answer. – BBischof Aug 13 '10 at 22:13
it's not just funny! Think of 'putting on socks' as 'applying the function f', taking them off as the inverse. and 'putting on shoes' as 'applying g'. – anon Aug 14 '10 at 5:51
@muad: Yes, we understand, but for someone struggling to prove the statement in the title, the connection is probably not obvious. – ShreevatsaR Aug 14 '10 at 7:35
This is amazingly clear intuitively, but it doesn't constitute a mathematical proof – JacksonFitzsimmons Apr 30 at 8:24

$$\begin{align} & \text{id} \\ =& f \circ f^\circ \\ =& f \circ \text{id} \circ f^\circ \\ =& f \circ (g \circ g^\circ) \circ f^\circ \\ =& f \circ g \circ g^\circ \circ f^\circ \\ =& (f \circ g) \circ (g^\circ \circ f^\circ) \end{align}$$

Therefore $(f \circ g)^\circ = g^\circ \circ f^\circ$.

share|cite|improve this answer

This is straightforward. Take x in the domain of f. It goes to f(x) = y. And g takes y to z = g(y). Therefore $g^{-1}$ takes z to y and $f^{-1}$ takes y to x. Both sides of your equation takes $z$ to $x$.

Please try to think more before asking. This was not hard, was it? :)

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm reading this book by myself, sometime it's seem very hard fro me to understand all of material without any suggestion. Anyway, I appreciate your help. =) – idonno Aug 13 '10 at 14:44
Sorry about the abrupt tone. I didn't mean to be rude. I have now softened it. – user1119 Aug 13 '10 at 14:48
I apologize for my misunderstanding too. – idonno Aug 14 '10 at 7:38

Heres a hint: The jacket is put on after the shirt, but is taken off before it.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is essential what lhf said. – Pedro Tamaroff May 12 '12 at 16:47

let $(x,y) \in (f \circ g) ^{-1} $
<=> $(y,x) \in (f \circ g)$
<=> $\exists t((y,t) \in g \land (t,x) \in f )$
<=> $\exists t((t,y) \in g^{-1} ) \land \exists ((x,t) \in f^{-1} ))$
<=> $(x,y) \in g^{-1} \circ f^{-1}$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.