Proving f is onto given if $g circ f = h circ f$, then g = h
$begingroup$
I realize that there has already been an answer to this problem. But I want to know if my proof was correct. Thank you for your time.
Problem
Suppose A,B, and C are sets and $f: A rightarrow B$
Suppose that C has at least two elements, and for all functions $g$ and $h$ from B to C, if $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$. Prove that $f$ is onto.
Proof
Suppose f is not onto. Then there is $b_1$ such that for all $a in A$, $f(a) neq b_1$. Suppose $(b_1, c_1) in g$ and $(b_1, c_2) in h$. For the assumption that $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$ to be true, $(b_1, c_1) = (b_1, c_2)$ whenever $g circ f = h circ f $.
Assume $g circ f = h circ f$. Since $b_1 notin Ran(f)$, $(a,c_1) notin g circ f$ and $(a,c_2) notin h circ f$. This means that as long as there are at least two elements in C, it is possible that $(b_1, c_2) neq (b_1, c_2)$ while $g circ f = h circ f$. (Even if $c_1 neq c_2$, it can still be true that $g circ f = h circ f$ since $c_1$ and $c_2$ are not in the range of $g circ f$ and $h circ f$.)
This is a contradiction, hence $f$ is onto.
functions proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing function-and-relation-composition
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I realize that there has already been an answer to this problem. But I want to know if my proof was correct. Thank you for your time.
Problem
Suppose A,B, and C are sets and $f: A rightarrow B$
Suppose that C has at least two elements, and for all functions $g$ and $h$ from B to C, if $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$. Prove that $f$ is onto.
Proof
Suppose f is not onto. Then there is $b_1$ such that for all $a in A$, $f(a) neq b_1$. Suppose $(b_1, c_1) in g$ and $(b_1, c_2) in h$. For the assumption that $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$ to be true, $(b_1, c_1) = (b_1, c_2)$ whenever $g circ f = h circ f $.
Assume $g circ f = h circ f$. Since $b_1 notin Ran(f)$, $(a,c_1) notin g circ f$ and $(a,c_2) notin h circ f$. This means that as long as there are at least two elements in C, it is possible that $(b_1, c_2) neq (b_1, c_2)$ while $g circ f = h circ f$. (Even if $c_1 neq c_2$, it can still be true that $g circ f = h circ f$ since $c_1$ and $c_2$ are not in the range of $g circ f$ and $h circ f$.)
This is a contradiction, hence $f$ is onto.
functions proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing function-and-relation-composition
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I realize that there has already been an answer to this problem. But I want to know if my proof was correct. Thank you for your time.
Problem
Suppose A,B, and C are sets and $f: A rightarrow B$
Suppose that C has at least two elements, and for all functions $g$ and $h$ from B to C, if $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$. Prove that $f$ is onto.
Proof
Suppose f is not onto. Then there is $b_1$ such that for all $a in A$, $f(a) neq b_1$. Suppose $(b_1, c_1) in g$ and $(b_1, c_2) in h$. For the assumption that $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$ to be true, $(b_1, c_1) = (b_1, c_2)$ whenever $g circ f = h circ f $.
Assume $g circ f = h circ f$. Since $b_1 notin Ran(f)$, $(a,c_1) notin g circ f$ and $(a,c_2) notin h circ f$. This means that as long as there are at least two elements in C, it is possible that $(b_1, c_2) neq (b_1, c_2)$ while $g circ f = h circ f$. (Even if $c_1 neq c_2$, it can still be true that $g circ f = h circ f$ since $c_1$ and $c_2$ are not in the range of $g circ f$ and $h circ f$.)
This is a contradiction, hence $f$ is onto.
functions proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing function-and-relation-composition
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
$endgroup$
I realize that there has already been an answer to this problem. But I want to know if my proof was correct. Thank you for your time.
Problem
Suppose A,B, and C are sets and $f: A rightarrow B$
Suppose that C has at least two elements, and for all functions $g$ and $h$ from B to C, if $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$. Prove that $f$ is onto.
Proof
Suppose f is not onto. Then there is $b_1$ such that for all $a in A$, $f(a) neq b_1$. Suppose $(b_1, c_1) in g$ and $(b_1, c_2) in h$. For the assumption that $g circ h = h circ f$ then $g = h$ to be true, $(b_1, c_1) = (b_1, c_2)$ whenever $g circ f = h circ f $.
Assume $g circ f = h circ f$. Since $b_1 notin Ran(f)$, $(a,c_1) notin g circ f$ and $(a,c_2) notin h circ f$. This means that as long as there are at least two elements in C, it is possible that $(b_1, c_2) neq (b_1, c_2)$ while $g circ f = h circ f$. (Even if $c_1 neq c_2$, it can still be true that $g circ f = h circ f$ since $c_1$ and $c_2$ are not in the range of $g circ f$ and $h circ f$.)
This is a contradiction, hence $f$ is onto.
functions proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing function-and-relation-composition
functions proof-verification elementary-set-theory proof-writing function-and-relation-composition
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
edited Dec 12 '18 at 1:39
Martin Sleziak
44.9k10122277
44.9k10122277
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
asked Sep 22 '18 at 18:57
PhilPhil
4716
4716
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
After the end of the second sentence, your first paragraph is a mess. There is no $g$ or $h$ defined or assumed yet, so you can’t talk about them, and certainly not talk about pairs in $g$ or in $h$. The final sentence “For the assumption...” is also incorrect as written and does not make much sense. That whole thing needs to be removed.
Second paragraph also starts badly. Who are $c_1$ and $c_2$? Who are $g$ and $h$? They are not given, so you can’t take them as given. Finally, any ‘proof’ that ends with “It’s possible that” or “it can still be true” is not really a proof. You aren’t proving something, you are just suggesting that it might be the case that something happens. That’s not a proof. In a proof, you are supposed to show that something does happen, unequivocally. Until you actually exhibit it happening, you are not proving anything.
So I would say that this attempt is not correct.
What you want to do after your first sentence is to actually construct two functions $g,hcolon Bto C$ with the properties that $gcirc f = hcirc f$, and $gneq h$. That will give a you proof by contrapositive, rather than one by contradiction.
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
$endgroup$
add a comment |
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2926857%2fproving-f-is-onto-given-if-g-circ-f-h-circ-f-then-g-h%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
After the end of the second sentence, your first paragraph is a mess. There is no $g$ or $h$ defined or assumed yet, so you can’t talk about them, and certainly not talk about pairs in $g$ or in $h$. The final sentence “For the assumption...” is also incorrect as written and does not make much sense. That whole thing needs to be removed.
Second paragraph also starts badly. Who are $c_1$ and $c_2$? Who are $g$ and $h$? They are not given, so you can’t take them as given. Finally, any ‘proof’ that ends with “It’s possible that” or “it can still be true” is not really a proof. You aren’t proving something, you are just suggesting that it might be the case that something happens. That’s not a proof. In a proof, you are supposed to show that something does happen, unequivocally. Until you actually exhibit it happening, you are not proving anything.
So I would say that this attempt is not correct.
What you want to do after your first sentence is to actually construct two functions $g,hcolon Bto C$ with the properties that $gcirc f = hcirc f$, and $gneq h$. That will give a you proof by contrapositive, rather than one by contradiction.
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After the end of the second sentence, your first paragraph is a mess. There is no $g$ or $h$ defined or assumed yet, so you can’t talk about them, and certainly not talk about pairs in $g$ or in $h$. The final sentence “For the assumption...” is also incorrect as written and does not make much sense. That whole thing needs to be removed.
Second paragraph also starts badly. Who are $c_1$ and $c_2$? Who are $g$ and $h$? They are not given, so you can’t take them as given. Finally, any ‘proof’ that ends with “It’s possible that” or “it can still be true” is not really a proof. You aren’t proving something, you are just suggesting that it might be the case that something happens. That’s not a proof. In a proof, you are supposed to show that something does happen, unequivocally. Until you actually exhibit it happening, you are not proving anything.
So I would say that this attempt is not correct.
What you want to do after your first sentence is to actually construct two functions $g,hcolon Bto C$ with the properties that $gcirc f = hcirc f$, and $gneq h$. That will give a you proof by contrapositive, rather than one by contradiction.
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After the end of the second sentence, your first paragraph is a mess. There is no $g$ or $h$ defined or assumed yet, so you can’t talk about them, and certainly not talk about pairs in $g$ or in $h$. The final sentence “For the assumption...” is also incorrect as written and does not make much sense. That whole thing needs to be removed.
Second paragraph also starts badly. Who are $c_1$ and $c_2$? Who are $g$ and $h$? They are not given, so you can’t take them as given. Finally, any ‘proof’ that ends with “It’s possible that” or “it can still be true” is not really a proof. You aren’t proving something, you are just suggesting that it might be the case that something happens. That’s not a proof. In a proof, you are supposed to show that something does happen, unequivocally. Until you actually exhibit it happening, you are not proving anything.
So I would say that this attempt is not correct.
What you want to do after your first sentence is to actually construct two functions $g,hcolon Bto C$ with the properties that $gcirc f = hcirc f$, and $gneq h$. That will give a you proof by contrapositive, rather than one by contradiction.
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
$endgroup$
After the end of the second sentence, your first paragraph is a mess. There is no $g$ or $h$ defined or assumed yet, so you can’t talk about them, and certainly not talk about pairs in $g$ or in $h$. The final sentence “For the assumption...” is also incorrect as written and does not make much sense. That whole thing needs to be removed.
Second paragraph also starts badly. Who are $c_1$ and $c_2$? Who are $g$ and $h$? They are not given, so you can’t take them as given. Finally, any ‘proof’ that ends with “It’s possible that” or “it can still be true” is not really a proof. You aren’t proving something, you are just suggesting that it might be the case that something happens. That’s not a proof. In a proof, you are supposed to show that something does happen, unequivocally. Until you actually exhibit it happening, you are not proving anything.
So I would say that this attempt is not correct.
What you want to do after your first sentence is to actually construct two functions $g,hcolon Bto C$ with the properties that $gcirc f = hcirc f$, and $gneq h$. That will give a you proof by contrapositive, rather than one by contradiction.
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
answered Sep 22 '18 at 20:01
Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin
266k34590920
266k34590920
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2926857%2fproving-f-is-onto-given-if-g-circ-f-h-circ-f-then-g-h%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
