6
$\begingroup$

I have some trouble finding the answer to this, can someone help me out:

If I have a general function $f$ with domain $X$ and codomain $Y$, I know nothing about the function (injective, surjective). Say I have found and inverse that is, there is a function $g$ such that for $f(x) = y$, $g(y) = x$ (is this enough for an inverse). Then the function is bijective?

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ If you have both $f\circ g = \text{Id}_Y$ and $g\circ f = \text{Id}_X$ then yes, $f$ is bijective. You do need both though. $\endgroup$ – James Aug 4 '15 at 15:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @James Ah ok that makes sense otherwise the function is only surjective/injective right? $\endgroup$ – john Aug 4 '15 at 15:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You got it. What you have written in the question is that $g \circ f = \text{Id}_X$ which implies $f$ is injective (and $g$ surjective). We sometimes talk about one-sided inverses, when you have both sides, you have a bijection. $\endgroup$ – James Aug 4 '15 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ Is this paper false: math.colorado.edu/~kstange/has-inverse-is-bijective.pdf? $\endgroup$ – mavavilj Sep 24 '18 at 21:26
8
$\begingroup$

If you have $f: X \to Y$, $g : Y \to X$ with $g(f(x)) = x$ for all $x \in X$, it is still possible for $f$ to not be bijective. However, $f$ will be a bijection onto its image; i.e., $f$ is a bijection from $X$ to $f(X)$. In particular, $f$ is injective.

If you additionally require that $f(g(y)) = y$ for all $y \in Y$ (i.e. $g$ is a "two-sided inverse"), then $f$ is a bijection from $X$ to $Y$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Not necessarily. Simply, the fact that it has an inverse does not imply that it is surjective, only that it is injective in its domain.

Take for example the functions $f(x)=1/x^n$ where $n$ is any real number. As $x$ approaches infinity, $f(x)$ will approach $0$, however, it never reaches $0$, therefore, though the function is inyective, and has an inverse, it is not surjective, and therefore not bijective.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

This is not true in general. The fact that $f$ has an inverse means the function is injective but for it to be bijective it needs to be surjective as well.

Let's see a simple example where $f$ is discrete. Let the domain and codomain be $X:=\{1,2\}$ and $Y:=\{2,4,6\}$. Define the function $f: X\mapsto Y$ as follows $$f(1) = 2, f(2)=4$$ The inverse function is simple: $$f^{-1}(2) = 1, f^{-1}(4)=2$$ but $f$ is not a bijection because $X$ and $Y$ do not have equal cardinality.

Remember that the function $f: X \mapsto Y$ is bijective iff for all $y \in Y$, there is a unique $x \in X$ such that $f(x) = y$.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

If you have f:X→Y,f:X→Y, g:Y→X ,g:Y→X with g(f(x))=x g(f(x))=x for all x∈X x∈X, it is still possible for ff to not be bijective. However, ff will be a bijection onto its image; i.e., ff is a bijection from XX to f(X)f(X). In particular, ff is injective.

If you additionally require that f(g(y))=yf(g(y))=y for all y∈Yy∈Y (i.e. gg is a "two-sided inverse"), then ff is a bijection from XX to YY.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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