Show Im(gf)=Im(g) When f is Onto (Wondering)

In summary, the conversation is about proving that the image of a composite function $gf$ is equal to the image of the function $g$, given that $f$ is onto. The speaker presents a proof and asks for clarification on the last step. Another person points out that the proof holds without the assumption of $f$ being onto. The speaker confirms and the conversation ends with gratitude.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

Let $f:B\rightarrow C$ and $g:C\rightarrow D$.
I want to show that Im(gf)=Im(g), when f is onto. I have done the following:

Let $x\in \text{Im}g$.
Then $\exists y\in C$ such that $g(y)=x$.
Since $f$ is onto, we have that $\exists b\in B$ such that $f(b)=y$.
Then $g(f(b))=x\Rightarrow x=(gf)(b)$.
So, $x\in \text{Im}(gf)$.

Let $x\in \text{Im}(gf)$ then $\exists z\in B$ such that $x=(gf)(z)=g(f(z))$.
Since $f$ is onto, we have that $\forall c\in C \ \ \exists b\in B$ such that $f(b)=c$.
We choose $c=f(z)$ and then we have that $x=g(c)\Rightarrow x\in \text{Im}(g)$.

Is my last step correct? I am not really sure.. (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi mathmari,

There is no need of $f$ to be onto to prove $Im(gf)\subseteq Im(g)$ since, by definition, $f(z)\in C$
 
  • #3
Fallen Angel said:
There is no need of $f$ to be onto to prove $Im(gf)\subseteq Im(g)$ since, by definition, $f(z)\in C$

Let $x\in \text{Im}(gf)$ then $\exists z\in B$ such that $x=(gf)(z)=g(f(z))$.
We have that $f(z)\in C$, say $c:=f(z)$, then we have that $x=g(c)\Rightarrow x\in \text{Im}(g)$.

Is this correct? Or didn't you mean it so? (Wondering)
 
  • #4
Yes, that's correct.
 
  • #5
Thank you very much! (Yes)
 

FAQ: Show Im(gf)=Im(g) When f is Onto (Wondering)

What does it mean for a function to be onto?

A function is considered onto if every element in the range has at least one preimage in the domain. In other words, every element in the output has at least one input that produces it.

How do you prove that a function is onto?

To prove that a function is onto, you must show that for every element in the range, there exists at least one element in the domain that maps to it. This can be done by either using the definition of onto or by using a direct proof.

What is the importance of showing Im(gf)=Im(g) when f is onto?

This fact is important because it shows that the range of the composite function g(f(x)) is equal to the range of the original function g(x). This means that the output of the composite function is the same as the output of the original function, even though the inputs may be different.

Can a function be onto if its range is not equal to its codomain?

No, if a function is onto, its range must be equal to its codomain. This is because every element in the range must have at least one preimage in the domain, and if the range is not equal to the codomain, there will be elements in the codomain that do not have a preimage.

How does showing Im(gf)=Im(g) when f is onto relate to the concept of composition of functions?

Showing this equality when f is onto demonstrates that the composite function g(f(x)) is essentially the same as the original function g(x). This is important in understanding how the composition of functions works and how it can be used to simplify calculations or solve problems.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
958
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top