Several commenters correctly answered the question from my previous post: if we have a function and
such that
for every
, then
is not necessarily invertible. Here are a few counterexamples:
-
Commenter Buddha Buck came up with probably the simplest counterexample: let
be a set with a single element, and
a set with two elements. It does not even matter what the elements are! There’s only one possible function
, which sends both elements of
to the single element of
. No matter what
does on that single element
(there are two choices, of course),
. But clearly
is not a bijection.
-
Another counterexample is from commenter designerspaces: let
be the function that includes the natural numbers in the integers—that is, it acts as the identity on all the natural numbers (i.e. nonnegative integers) and is undefined on negative integers.
can be the absolute value function. Then
whenever
is a natural number, but
is not a bijection, since it doesn’t match up the negative integers with anything.
Unlike the previous example, in this case it is actually possible to make a bijection between
and
, for example, the function that sends even
to
and odd
to
.
-
Another simple example would be the function
defined by
. Then the function
satisfies the condition, but
is not a bijection, again, because it leaves out a bunch of elements.
-
Can you come up with an example
defined on the real numbers
(along with a corresponding
)? Bonus points if your example function is continuous.
All these examples have something in common, namely, one or more elements of the codomain that are not “hit” by . Michael Paul Goldenberg noted this phenomenon in general. And in fact we can make this intuition precise.
Theorem. If and
such that
for all
, then
is injective (one-to-one).
Proof. Suppose for some we have
. Then applying
to both sides of this equation yields
, but because
for all
, this in turn means that
. Hence
is injective.
Corollary. since bijections are exactly those functions which are both injective (one-to-one) and surjective (onto), any such function which is not a bijection must not be surjective.
And what about the opposite case, when there are functions and
such that
for all
? As you might guess, such functions are guaranteed to be surjective—can you see why?
Pingback: Ways to prove a bijection | The Math Less Traveled