Let $G=(A,+)$ be an abelian group, T a permutation on $A$. Assume that $x - T(x) \neq y - T(y)$ for all distinct $x,y \in A$. Show that $p(x)=x - T(x)$ is a permutation on $A$.

For that I would show that $p: A\rightarrow A$ and $p$ bijective. The first property and injectivity are obvious. It remains to show that $\forall x \in A \ \exists z \in A : p(z)=x$. I have no Idea how I should do that.


The statement is false, here's a counterexample:

Let $G = (\Bbb Z,+)$, which is an abelian group. Define $T(x) := -x$, which is indeed a permutation on $\Bbb Z$. For any $x,y \in \Bbb Z$ with $x \neq y$, we have $$x-T(x) = 2x \neq 2y = y - T(y).$$ But $p(x) = x - T(x) = 2x$ is not a permutation on $\Bbb Z$ since $1$ is not in its image.


The only idea that I have is the following:

If G is a group that verifies the nullity+rank theorem, i.e. for all morphism $\psi: G\to G$ then $G$ can be written as $G\cong ker(\psi)\oplus im(\psi)$, then each injective morphism is surjective.

In general your question is really complicated. For example in a Banach space $X$ if you have a morphism $T$ such that $||T||< 1$ then you have that $I-T$ is invertibile and its inverse is

$\sum_{k=0}^\infty T^n $

by Von Neumann lemma. So in general it is really difficult to find the inverse of $I-T$. Another problem is that there e exists some limited operator $T$ such that $1$ is in the residue specter of $T$ that means that $I-T$ could be injective but not surjective. So your assertion tell us that if $T$ is bijective than $1$ is not in the residue specter of $T$ but I don’t know if it is true.


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.