MHB You're welcome! Glad I could help. (Thumbs up)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of the inverse of a relation, specifically showing that the domain of the inverse equals the range of the original relation, and vice versa. Participants confirm that the first three identities are correct, while also discussing the proof for the fourth identity, which states that the inverse of the inverse relation returns the original relation. A detailed explanation is provided for each identity, including the use of logical implications to establish equivalences. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of understanding regarding the proofs presented.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Wave)

Let $R$ be a relation.

Show the following sentences:

  1. $dom(R^{-1})=rng(R)$
  2. $rng(R^{-1})=dom(R)$
  3. $fld(R^{-1})=fld(R)$
  4. $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$

That's what I have tried:

  1. Let $x \in dom(R^{-1})$. Then $\exists y$ such that $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R \Rightarrow x \in rng(R)$.

    So, $dom(R^{-1}) \subset rng(R)$.

    Let $y \in rng(R)$. Then $\exists x$ such that $<x,y> \in R \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow y \in dom(R^{-1})$.

    So, $rng(R) \subset dom(R^{-1})$.

    Therefore, $rng(R)=dom(R^{-1})$.
  2. Let $y \in rng(R^{-1})$. Then $\exists x$ such that $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R \Rightarrow y \in dom R$.

    So, $rng(R^{-1}) \subset dom R$

    Let $y \in dom R$. Then $\exists y$ such that $<x,y> ain R \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow x \in rng(R^{-1})$

    So, $dom R \subset rng(R^{-1})$.

    Therefore, $dom R = rng(R^{-1})$.
  3. $$fld(R^{-1})=dom(R^{-1}) \cup rng (R^{-1})=rng(R) \cup dom R$$
    $$fld(R)=dom R \cup rng(R)$$

Is that what I have tried right or have I done something wrong? (Thinking)

Also, how could we prove the fourth identity $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$ ? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Number 1-3 are correct. Number 4 is even easier than 1 or 2.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Number 1-3 are correct. Number 4 is even easier than 1 or 2.

Is it maybe like that? (Thinking)

Let $<y,x> \in (R^{-1})^{-1}$. Then: $<x,y> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <y,x> \in R$.

So, $(R^{-1})^{-1} \subset R$.

Let $<x,y> \in R$. Then: $<y,x> \in R^{-1} \Rightarrow <x,y> \in (R^{-1})^{-1}$.

So, $R \subset (R^{-1})^{-1}$.

Therefore, $(R^{-1})^{-1}=R$.

(Thinking)
 
Yes. I would write it as a chain of equivalences:
\[
\langle x,y\rangle\in R\iff \langle y,x\rangle\in R^{-1}\iff \langle x,y\rangle\in(R^{-1})^{-1}.
\]
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Yes. I would write it as a chain of equivalences:
\[
\langle x,y\rangle\in R\iff \langle y,x\rangle\in R^{-1}\iff \langle x,y\rangle\in(R^{-1})^{-1}.
\]

Nice! I understand! (Nod) Thanks a lot! (Smile)
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top