Function
A function from
to
denoted by
is a
binary relation on
such that if
, then
, which says given an element
it is only ever related to a single
.
Function Equality
Suppose that and are two functions, then we say that they are equal and write when for every
dom f
Given a function , then we denote which we is shorthand for the word domain
ran f
Given a function , then we denote which we is shorthand for the word range
Constant Function
Suppose that we have a
function such that there is a value
such that for every
, we have
, then we say that
is
constant with value
Identity Function
Let be a set, the we define the following function , such that for any and call it the identity function on .
Domain Restricted Function
Let let , then the restriction of to is the function defined by: for each
The restriction of a function is thought of as the same function but with elements from it's domain removed, or restricted to a smaller set.
Inclusion Function
Suppose that , the inclusion function is defined by: where the output of is considered as an element from
Restriction Equals Inclusion Composed with Original
let
and suppose
, and let
be the
inclusion function, then we have
Let
, then
, and
thus the two functions are equal.
Function Composition
Suppose that are sets, and that are functions, then we define for any , so that
Function Addition
Suppose that are functions and is a binary operation on , then we define as:
Function Multiplication
Let be a function and let be a binary operation on , then for any , we define as:
Image of a Set
Let
be a
function and
, then
An Element Belongs to a set Implies its Image belongs to the Image of the Set
An Element belongs to a Set iff its Image belongs to the Image of the Set when the Function is Surjective
Suppose that
is
injective, then
The
previous corollary already shows
now if we suppose that
then there is some
such that
, since
is injective, then we deduce that
so that
.
Image Maintains Subsets
Suppose that then we have
Union Factors through Image
iff
where
iff there exists some
such that
which shows that
iff
as needed.
Image of the Intersection is a Subset of the Intersection of the Images
Suppose that
iff
where
iff
,
therefore so that
Image of the Intersection is Equal to the Intersection of the Images if the Function is Injective
Suppose that
is
injective, then
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
Suppose that
is
injective then
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.
Inverse Image of a Function
Suppose and , then
Inverse Image Maintains Subsets
Suppose that then we have
Inverse Image of The Range is The Domain
Suppose that is a function, then
Inverse Image of a Composition
Suppose that we have two functions and and suppose that , then
A point is an element of iff by definition this means that iff iff as needed.
Union Factors through Inverse Image
We can observe that , if and only if , iff there exists some such that iff 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
The Inverse of the Identity Function Is Itself
Suppose that is a set, then we have
Let then note:
as needed.
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.
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.
Injective Function
a
function is injective iff
Inverse Image of Image Equality
Suppose that
and that
, if
is
injective then
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 .
Surjective Function
a
function is surjective iff
Image of Inverse Image Equality
Suppose that and that , if is surjective then
We're already aware that , so we must just show that .
So we start by assuming , and now we must show that , this is only true if for some , which in turn means that also has to satisfy: .
We start with , thus since and is surjective we get some such that , since , then also as needed.
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
Function Iteration
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
Support of a Function
Suppose that is a function then