0
$\begingroup$

Given $f$ as an invertible function with domain $X$ and codomain $Y$, then we can say

$$f^{-1}(f(x)) = x $$

Or since they are both logically equivalent

$$ f(f^{-1}(x)) = x $$

This can also be written more formally as :

$$f^{-1} \circ f = id_x \ \Leftrightarrow f \circ f^{-1} = id_x $$

It is a relatively simple and common, property of functions, yet I haven't seen a formal proof of it. So how do you prove this statement $\ \forall f\ $, where $f$ is an arbitrary invertible function?

If the proof requires higher mathematics (e.g Category Theory, Morphisms etc.), please do not hesitate to include them.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How are you defining the inverse of an invertible function? $\endgroup$ – davidlowryduda Apr 21 '16 at 0:06
  • $\begingroup$ I think they're just trying to prove that $f \circ g=id_X$ implies $g \circ f=id_Y$ for any function $f$ from $X$ to $Y$ and any function $g$ from $Y$ to $X$. $\endgroup$ – Noble Mushtak Apr 21 '16 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ On your second line you have an expression on the left side of an implication and a proposition on the right. $\endgroup$ – Dan Piponi Apr 21 '16 at 0:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't completely understand this question. If you're asking whether having a right inverse implies having a left inverse (or the other way around), then this is not true. If you're asking whether the right inverse and the left inverse of a function have to be equal if they both exist, this follows from $l = l \circ id = l \circ f \circ r = id \circ r = r$ by associativity (where $r$ and $l$ denote the inverses of $f$). If you're asking whether $f \circ f^{-1} = id$ iff $f(f^{-1}(x)) = x$ for all $x$, this holds because two functions are equal iff their values are equal at each point. $\endgroup$ – Abel Apr 21 '16 at 0:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It feels a bit weird to say they are logically equivalent, since they are both just true if we assume that $f$ is invertible (and both are required for invertibility), as in Tryss's answer. Actually, you can't even say $f(f^{-1}(y))=y$ for all $y$ without assuming the existence of $f^{-1}$, which in turn implies that also $f^{-1}(f(x))=x$ for all $x$, by definition. The most you could say is my second point: if you have functions $g$ and $h$ such that $f(g(y))=y$ for all $y$ and $h(f(x))=x$ for all $x$, then $g=h$ and we call this function $f^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ – Abel Apr 21 '16 at 0:20
4
$\begingroup$

It is the definition of an invertible function.

A function $f:X\to Y$ is said to be invertible if there exists a function $g:Y\to X$ such that

$$\forall y \in Y, f(g(y)) = y \text{ and } \forall x\in X, g(f(x)) = x$$

If $f$ has this property, we call $g$ the inverse of $f$ and note it $f^{-1}:= g$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think I may have asked for a proof for this, not realizing it was the definition of an invertible function. After a quick read on this here : divisbyzero.com/2008/09/22/…, I realized that I may have been wrong to ask for a proof of a definition. Is my understanding now correct that definitions in Mathematics have do not have proofs, only Theorems do? $\endgroup$ – Perturbative Apr 21 '16 at 0:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Perturbative that is correct. Definitions are the language we use. Theorems are like the sentences we put together. You can't really prove language, but you can tell when a sentence is properly strung together. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Apr 21 '16 at 0:32
  • $\begingroup$ Definitions don't have proofs because they are just placing a label on something that previously exists. $\endgroup$ – Q the Platypus Apr 21 '16 at 0:32

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.