Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It states in my book that

    "A surjective function f has an inverse if and only if its graph is cut at most once by any horizontal line."

    What i don't quite understand here is how a surjective function has an inverse if it's cut at most once by a horizontal line. Surely then by definition then it's not a surj..............


    Realising that f(x)=x³ is an example are there any other examples of such a function which fits this definition?

    And is an injective function invertible provided they are increasing or decreasing like x^5 for example? or -x^3
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If  f is surjective and any horizntal line cuts the graph at at most one point then this means that  f is injective and so this means it is bijective. A function has an inverse if and only if it is bijective.
    A function that is strictly increasing or strictly decreasing is injective (assuming function is continuous) but this does not mean necessarily that the function is surjective and so it may not be bijective so may not have an inverse.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    It states in my book that
    What book are you using? I've not come across these horizontal/vertical line tests spelt out explicitly .
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B_9710)
    If  f is surjective and any horizntal line cuts the graph at at most one point then this means that  f is injective and so this means it is bijective. A function has an inverse if and only if it is bijective.
    A function that is strictly increasing or strictly decreasing is injective (assuming function is continuous) but this does not mean necessarily that the function is surjective and so it may not be bijective so may not have an inverse.
    You don't need to assume continuity for strictly increasing => iniective.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    RULER TEST gwm
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B_9710)
    If  f is surjective and any horizntal line cuts the graph at at most one point then this means that  f is injective and so this means it is bijective. A function has an inverse if and only if it is bijective.
    A function that is strictly increasing or strictly decreasing is injective (assuming function is continuous) but this does not mean necessarily that the function is surjective and so it may not be bijective so may not have an inverse.
    I thought it had one if it was injective of course bijective is included
    I mean i think that if it's bijective then it's invertible
    (Original post by ghostwalker)
    What book are you using? I've not come across these horizontal/vertical line tests spelt out explicitly .
    The custom book my uni gives out made by some of the lecturers who teach me.

    I've also just realised i have no idea what it means to have an "invertible function" cus google gives me inverse and did you mean inverse function -__-
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    I thought it had one if it was injective of course bijective is included
    I mean i think that if it's bijective then it's invertible
    Take f: \mathbb{R}_{\geqslant 0} \to \mathbb{R} given by x\mapsto x^2 then this is injective but not surjective and has no inverse. If it's invertible then it is bijective and if it is bijective then it is invertible.


    I've also just realised i have no idea what it means to have an "invertible function" cus google gives me inverse and did you mean inverse function -__-
    The inverse to a function f:X \to Y is a function g: \mathrm{im} \,f \to X with gf=fg = \mathrm{id}. A function f is called invertible if an inverse function exists. [Of course, here \mathrm{im} \, f = Y ]
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Take f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} given by x\mapsto x^2 then this is injective but not surjective and has no inverse. If it's invertible then it is bijective and if it is bijective then it is invertible.




    The inverse to a function f:X \to Y is a function g: \mathrm{im} \,f \to X with gf=fg = \mathrm{id}. A function f is called invertible if an inverse function exists. [Of course, here \mathrm{im} \, f = Y ]
    I thought injective meant 1 to 1 but for example -1 and 1 both real numbers give out the same output so surely that's just neither?

    Thanks man
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    I thought injective meant 1 to 1 but for example -1 and 1 both real numbers give out the same output so surely that's just neither?

    Thanks man
    1-to-1 doesn't really mean anything, but I believe the majority of people use 1-to-1 to mean bijective.

    Yeah sorry, I meant to do f:\mathbb{R}_{\geqslant 0} \to \mathbb{R} given by x \mapsto x^2
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    1-to-1 doesn't really mean anything, but I believe the majority of people use 1-to-1 to mean bijective.

    Yeah sorry, I meant to do f:\mathbb{R}_{\geqslant 0} \to \mathbb{R} given by x \mapsto x^2
    Oh do they? Ah that's why. For the course i do bijective is defined as a function which is both injective and surjective .-.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    Oh do they? Ah that's why. For the course i do bijective is defined as a function which is both injective and surjective .-.
    Yes, that's the definition of bijective.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    1-to-1 doesn't really mean anything, but I believe the majority of people use 1-to-1 to mean tbijective.
    Possibly this has changed, but I have always understood 1-to-1 to be synonymous with injective (and onto synonymous with surjective).

    Wikipedia seems to agree with me, FWIW.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Possibly this has changed, but I have always understood 1-to-1 to be synonymous with injective (and onto synonymous with surjective).

    Wikipedia seems to agree with me, FWIW.
    In hindsight, you're right. I think what has me confused is that people use 1-to-1 for injective and 1-to-1 correspondence for bijective. I tend to try and avoid all those terms and just stick to injective/bijective myself (although I do use onto).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.