Prove that S has no right inverse, but that

  • Thread starter Jamin2112
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Inverse
In summary: Okay, I think I have a solution.Let's say that the right inverse R exists. Then for every number in the codomain of S, there must exist a number in the domain of S such that R(S(x)) = x, where x is any natural number. So for every n in N, there must be an m in N such that R(n+1) = m. However, this creates a problem. For any value of n, n+1 is also a natural number, and therefore must have a corresponding value m. But that means that there are two values in the domain, n and n+1, that both correspond to the same value in the codomain, m. Therefore, R cannot be a
  • #1
Jamin2112
986
12

Homework Statement



PLEASE HELP. HOMEWORK DUE TOMORROW.

Let N denote the set {1, 2, 3, ...} of natural numbers, and let S:N-->N be the shift map, defined by S(n) = n + 1. Prove that S be no right inverse, but it has infinitely many left inverses.

Homework Equations



Some definitions.

If an element a has both a left inverse L and a right inverse R, i.e., La = 1 and aR = 1, then L = R, a is invertible, R is its inverse.

The Attempt at a Solution



My first time doing senior-level algebra.

So, supposedly there can not be a number R such that (n + 1) * R = 1, and I'm supposed to prove that. Am I supposed to think of this as a law of composition on the natural numbers, N x N ---> N where we're combining n and 1 to get this other natural number n + 1? Or what should I be doing? Can I get a hint?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hey, I'm working on the same problem, and equally stuck. Here's a line of thought I think might be the key.

We aren't looking for an inverse such that s*R = 1, because s isn't a number, it's a map. The definition of s*R = 1 is for an element s. What s is an element of is the maps N -> N, so when we are looking for an inverse of s we are looking for a s(n)*R = n, as the identity map is the map that returns everything to it's original value.

I still am not sure how to solve this problem, but this is as far as I've gotten.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Alright, I've just about got a solution now, this should get you started on the right track:

I was right previously, we are not looking for a number r such that s(n)*r = 1, but for a map. The right inverse of s would mean that s(r(n)) = n for all n in the natural numbers. Can you prove that r cannot exist?
 
  • #4
FunkReverend said:
Hey, I'm working on the same problem



[PLAIN]http://depts.washington.edu/alumni/blogs/bdtw/files/2011/01/UW-logo-20011.jpg ??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
What? I can only assume you're asking if I go to Washington. No, It's just the problem comes straight from a common algebra textbook and I'm in the same chapter.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
haha, I'm stuck on the same question, and yesh i do go to UW.

I can only assume that we are in the same class. So i'll see you there. =]
 
  • #7
Jamin2112 said:

Homework Statement



PLEASE HELP. HOMEWORK DUE TOMORROW.

Let N denote the set {1, 2, 3, ...} of natural numbers, and let S:N-->N be the shift map, defined by S(n) = n + 1. Prove that S be no right inverse, but it has infinitely many left inverses.


Homework Equations



Some definitions.

If an element a has both a left inverse L and a right inverse R, i.e., La = 1 and aR = 1, then L = R, a is invertible, R is its inverse.
No. You are completely missing the point. We are not talking about multiplication nor about an operation on N, we are talking about a mapping and inverse mapping. If S is a mapping from N to itself, then its "right inverse" would have to be a mapping,
R, again from N to itself, such that SR(x)= x. Here, S(x)= x+ 1 so R(x) would have to map n into x, such that SR(n)= S(x)= x+ 1= n. What is x? Why is that impossible (why is it NOT a mapping of N to itself)?

A left inverse, L, is a mapping from N to itself, such that LR(x)= x. Now, R(x)= x+ 1 so that says L(x+1)= x. What function does that? Why are there an infinite number of such functions? Be careful about the domain of L.


The Attempt at a Solution



My first time doing senior-level algebra.

So, supposedly there can not be a number R such that (n + 1) * R = 1, and I'm supposed to prove that. Am I supposed to think of this as a law of composition on the natural numbers, N x N ---> N where we're combining n and 1 to get this other natural number n + 1? Or what should I be doing? Can I get a hint?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
BananaNeil said:
haha, I'm stuck on the same question, and yesh i do go to UW.

I can only assume that we are in the same class. So i'll see you there. =]

Yeah ... we're going to need to start a study group. gorudy@uw.edu: Email me before the next assignment is due
 
  • #9
HallsofIvy said:
No. You are completely missing the point. We are not talking about multiplication nor about an operation on N, we are talking about a mapping and inverse mapping. If S is a mapping from N to itself, then its "right inverse" would have to be a mapping,
R, again from N to itself, such that SR(x)= x. Here, S(x)= x+ 1 so R(x) would have to map n into x, such that SR(n)= S(x)= x+ 1= n. What is x? Why is that impossible (why is it NOT a mapping of N to itself)?

A left inverse, L, is a mapping from N to itself, such that LR(x)= x. Now, R(x)= x+ 1 so that says L(x+1)= x. What function does that? Why are there an infinite number of such functions? Be careful about the domain of L.


It seems like you're drawing on some definitions that state (but maybe implied?) in my book.

If S has a right inverse, that means for all elements in the codomain ---- x + 1, where x is in N ---- there exists an element in the domain ---- n, where n is in N ---- such that n = x + 1. Is that right? And does the domain and codomain of S have to contain all the natural numbers? I've inferred no such restriction (and again, this isn't in my book). Of course, x = n - 1 would mean that x would be 0 if n = 1, meaning we don't have a right inverse.
 

FAQ: Prove that S has no right inverse, but that

What is a right inverse?

A right inverse is a mathematical concept that refers to a number or object that, when multiplied by another number or object, yields the identity element. In other words, it "undoes" the original operation.

How do you prove that S has no right inverse?

To prove that S has no right inverse, we need to show that for every element in S, there is no element that can be multiplied by it to yield the identity element. This can be done by providing a counterexample or by using mathematical proofs such as contradiction or contrapositive.

Can an object have a left inverse but no right inverse?

Yes, it is possible for an object to have a left inverse but no right inverse. This means that there exists an element that, when multiplied on the left, yields the identity element, but there is no element that can be multiplied on the right to yield the identity element.

Are there any real-life examples of objects with no right inverse?

Yes, there are real-life examples of objects with no right inverse. One example is division by zero in mathematics. Another example is the operation of taking the square root of a negative number, which has no solution in the set of real numbers.

Why is it important to prove that S has no right inverse?

Proving that S has no right inverse is important because it helps us understand the properties of the object or concept in question. It also helps us avoid making incorrect assumptions or calculations in mathematical or scientific applications.

Back
Top