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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I can't think of an example to prove that if f(f(x))=g(g(x)) then g(x)=f(x) also note that g,f \mathbb R \Rightarrow \mathbb R


    the problem is that no matter what i can think of it never works. I can sub g for f and say that f(g(x)) or g(f(x)) but as long as the question says that f and g are the same then i can't see how there'd ever be an example to prove this wrong.


    I thought maybe that the statement was in the form if P then Q so i thought maybe that P does not imply Q but however it is Q implies P but i dont' quite fully understand the implies stuff so i don't even know if that's the right way to go.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    I can't think of an example to prove that if f(f(x))=g(g(x)) then g(x)=f(x) also note that g,f \mathbb R \Rightarrow \mathbb R


    the problem is that no matter what i can think of it never works. I can sub g for f and say that f(g(x)) or g(f(x)) but as long as the question says that f and g are the same then i can't see how there'd ever be an example to prove this wrong.


    I thought maybe that the statement was in the form if P then Q so i thought maybe that P does not imply Q but however it is Q implies P but i dont' quite fully understand the implies stuff so i don't even know if that's the right way to go.
    Prove the contrapositive statement:

    If f(x) \neq g(x) then ff(x) \neq gg(x)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Prove the contrapositive statement:

    If f(x) \neq g(x) then ff(x) \neq gg(x)
    sorry my bad, i think it and don't write it out correctly, lol if only i could just contrapositive this and it'd be all right, sorry about the mess.


    I was supposed to prove this is an incorrect statement.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    sorry my bad, i think it and don't write it out correctly, lol if only i could just contrapositive this and it'd be all right, sorry about the mess.


    I was supposed to prove this is an incorrect statement.
    Just pick a counter example.

    f(x)=x and g(x)=\frac{1}{x} if x \neq 0 and g(x)=0 if x=0 (dunno how to write g piecewise atm on this, but you get the function) then both give ff(x)=gg(x) and both are \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}. Reversing this order, clearly we do not get an implication like the question says.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Prove the contrapositive statement:

    If f(x) \neq g(x) then ff(x) \neq gg(x)
    Would ff(x) not be the product of the function f and the (real) number f(x)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Just pick a counter example.

    f(x)=x and g(x)=\frac{1}{x} if x \neq 0 and g(x)=0 if x=0 (dunno how to write g piecewise atm on this, but you get the function) then both give ff(x)=gg(x) and both are \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}. Reversing this, clearly we do not get an implication like the question says.
    ye but f and g must be the same

    f(x)=g(x)

    i think you use the code called cases to produce them big squigly {} and write it kinda like a matrix


    But ye f and g gotta be the same
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will'o'wisp2)
    ye but f and g must be the same

    f(x)=g(x)

    i think you use the code called cases to produce them big squigly {} and write it kinda like a matrix


    But ye f and g gotta be the same
    Do they? Where does it say that? The statement says that IF ff(x)=gg(x) THEN f(x)=g(x) but if you use my example above, we get the 'IF' condition, but it doesn't lead us to the 'THEN' condition, hence the statement is false as the 'IF' doesn't imply the 'THEN'
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    Would ff(x) not be the product of the function f and the (real) number f(x)?
    Product? No, the title says composite so you stuff one into itself.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Product? No, the title says composite so you stuff one into itself.
    I dunno, but saying  ff(x) = f(f(x)) seems a to 'go against' function notation, where, as far as I'm aware, the argument of a function is written next to function inside brackets, eg.,  f(x), g(y), h(z) etc.

    Personally, I wouldn't agree the above assertion is true because it allows ambiguous notation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    I dunno, but saying  ff(x) = f(f(x)) seems a to 'go against' function notation, where, as far as I'm aware, the argument of a function is written next to function inside brackets, eg.,  f(x), g(y), h(z) etc.

    Personally, I wouldn't agree the above assertion is true because it allows ambiguous notation.
    ff(x) is a common alternative to (f \circ f)(x) or f(f(x)). I wouldn't call it ambiguous.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    I dunno, but saying  ff(x) = f(f(x)) seems a to 'go against' function notation, where, as far as I'm aware, the argument of a function is written next to function inside brackets, eg.,  f(x), g(y), h(z) etc.

    Personally, I wouldn't agree the above assertion is true because it allows ambiguous notation.
    The standard composite function notation shortens it from f(g(x)) to fg(x), the same for ff(x). If it's anything other than this, the question's context would clarify on it.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    The standard composite function notation shortens it from f(g(x)) to fg(x), the same for ff(x). If it's anything other than this, the question's context would clarify on it.
    Is is then okay to say that  gf = g \circ f?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    ff(x) is a common alternative to (f \circ f)(x) or f(f(x)). I wouldn't call it ambiguous.
    So if I write two functions without any gaps, eg., fg, then I'm referring to f\circ g not  f \cdot g?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Do they? Where does it say that? The statement says that IF ff(x)=gg(x) THEN f(x)=g(x) but if you use my example above, we get the 'IF' condition, but it doesn't lead us to the 'THEN' condition, hence the statement is false as the 'IF' doesn't imply the 'THEN'
    oh rite i see so as long as the function equal each other but f and g aren't the same then the statement is false, thanks so much man, i was struggling so much .__.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    So if I write two functions without any gaps, eg., fg, then I'm referring to f\circ g not  f \cdot g?
    depends on the context. If it was in shorthand and we were omitting arguments anyway I'd normally read fg as f(x) \cdot g(x). But written as fg(x) I'd interpret it as (f \circ g)(x). I'm personally not a fan of it though.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    depends on the context. If it was in shorthand and we were omitting arguments anyway I'd normally read fg as f(x) \cdot g(x). But written as fg(x) I'd interpret it as (f \circ g)(x). I'm personally not a fan of it though.
    Is there any other notation where the context can change what it means?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    Is there any other notation where the context can change what it means?
    Yes, lots.

    f^* might mean the complex conjugate of f, the adjoint function, the dual function, the function with removable singularities removed, the function f restricted to the interior of a given domain, the function f induces on a quotient space, etc...

    That said, I agree with your concern in this case; I really don't like ff(x) here. All the same, I don't think it's worth derailing the thread over.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    All the same, I don't think it's worth derailing the thread over.
    Sorry about that. It's a bit easy to get carried away sometimes. :/ Next time I'll try to reel it in a bit.

    Btw, if the question has been answered satisfactorily, is it okay to then derail the thread?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    Sorry about that. It's a bit easy to get carried away sometimes. :/ Next time I'll try to reel it in a bit.

    Btw, if the question has been answered satisfactorily, is it okay to then derail the thread?
    If it's clear the OP isn't going to be confused as a consequence, then I think it's OK (but to be clear, I don't make/enforce the rules here, although I have no hesitation in making my own views known).
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.