We already know that holds true therefore we do the other direction so suppose that therefore for all so that there is some such that . We note that for all we know that so that by injectivity we have let be their common value and note that and that so that
The Difference of Images is a Subset of the Image of the Difference
Let therefore so that and , therefore it must be the case that , therefore so we can conclude that as needed.
Note that the other inclusion is not true in general, in the proof you might try and think that if implies that but this would be wrong, for example consider such that it is constant , then given such that then we have and also that and so it's clearly not true. This hints at the next proposition
The Difference of the Images equals the Image of the Difference if the Function is Injective
We already know that and therefore we just have to prove .
Suppose that therefore where , since then we know then but just because it doesn't directly imply that , but if we suppose for the sake of contradiction that then we would deduce that for some but then we have and since is injective, then which is a contradiction, because that would imply that , therefore it must be the case that so that as needed.
Since all the logical connectives in the above proof are iff's then this shows the two sets equal
Set Difference Factors through Inverse Image
Suppose that , and that , then
iff iff and , iff and , iff , as needed.
Intersection Factors through Inverse Image
We can observe that , if and only if , iff for every we have iff (still for each ) so that as needed.
Since all the logical connectives in the above proof are iff's then this shows the two sets equal
Image of the Inverse Image
Suppose that is a function, and that , then
Let , therefore where , therefore as needed.
Note that the above proposition is not equality, consider the function defined as for every , then . This hints at how we can force equality
Inverse Image of the Image
Suppose that , then
Let , we wish to prove that , which means that we must show , clearly this is true since
This proposition is not equality if we consider the function and define , then if we consider we see it equals which is clearly a superset.
Invertible Function
Let be a function, then is said to be invertible if there exists a function such that for every and for every
Inverse Function
Suppose that is invertible, then there is a function satifying said properties, then we define the notation and say that is the inverse function of
Note that this seems quite similar to the inverse image notation, which looks like where , note that they differ as the inverse image is a function from to , so it is a function that maps sets to sets.
This differs from the inverse of a function because it operates on individual elements of , so we may write things like where , noting that .This idea of using the same notation for a function, but having the type of it's parameters be different is usually known as overloading in the world of programming.
If this is your first brush with notation overloading, then know that it can be confusing, but all confusion can be cleared by inspecting what the inputs are to the function. This should remind you that a function is not just a name, it's signature is given by it's name, input types and return type. To see if you really understand this, answer the following exercise.
Invertible iff Bijective
This means that the notation where is reserved only for functions whose inverse exists, otherwise we have problems for example if was not surjective and there was an element that can never get mapped to then what does mean? If it was not injective, then suppose that there was such that then makes no sense because we know that , so we must have injectivity. Therefore you must be carful not to write the symbol unless you know that is invertible.
Inverse Image of the Inverse Function is the Image
Let and assume that it's inverse exists and let show that:
Suppose that , by definition this is only true when , so for some , equivalent to , which is true if and only if .
All logical connectives in the above proof are iff's therefore we've shown the two sets equal.
We've already proven that , so we just need to prove that .
Suppose that , therefore , which means that there is some such that , since we assumed that was injective this implies that , which concludes by showing .
composition of two bijective functions is bijective
Suppose are non-empty sets and are functions, and that is a function. Then if and are bijective then is also bijective.
We'll show that is surjective first, so let , since is bijective we get some such that , since , then since is surjective we get some such that , thus so then is surjective
Now let's show that is injective, so suppose that and assume that , note that this means , therefore since is injective we know that and since is injective then we know that as needed.
Self Map
Suppose that is a set, then a self map is any function of the form
Given a function , then we define and then for any we define via composition:
So for example which is what we expect.
Relation Preserving Function
Suppose that and are binary relations, and a function, then we say that is relation preserving if given
Note that when the relation is an order, we say that it is an order preserving function, you are already familiar with them, consider on .
Relation Reversing Function
Suppose that and are relations, and a function, then we say that is relation reversing if given
The Inverse of an Order Preserving Function is Order Preserving
Suppose that and are partial orders and is order preserving and invertible, then is also order preserving
Let such that now we want to prove that .
If it so happens that then we automatically have that as is reflexive.
So suppose rather that and that . Note that and for some since is a total order than are comparable, if it so happens that then since is order preserving, then we would have since was assumed invertible, which would only be possible if which we know is not the case, therefore we must have that which means that
When a Function Defined in Terms of a Function is a Function
Suppose that and , then if is a defined such that is a function iff for any