Recall that the notation
means that f is a function whose
domain (set of inputs) is X and whose outputs lie in the set Y. Note
that there may be elements of Y which are not outputs of f.
Definition. Let
be a function
from a set X to a set Y.
1. f is injective (or
one-to-one) if
implies
for all
.
2. f is surjective (or
onto) if for all
, there is an
such that
.
3. f is bijective (or a one-to-one correspondence) if it is both injective and surjective.
Informally, a function is injective if different inputs always produce different outputs. A function is surjective if everything in the target set is an output of the function.
Example. ( Injective and
surjective functions) Consider the function
given by
. f is {\it not} injective,
because
Nor is f surjective. There is no
, for instance, such that
.
Note, however, that if
is defined by
, then g is surjective. (
denotes the
set of real numbers greater than or equal to 0.) I just shrunk the
target set so that it coincides with the set of outputs of
.
Example. ( Injective and
surjective functions) Consider the function
given by
. f is injective: If two outputs
are the same, say
That is, the inputs must have been the same.
This is one way to show that a function f is injective:
Assume that
, and prove that
.
However, f is not surjective: There is no
such that
, i.e. such that
, because
is always positive.
You may know that there is a graphical test for injectivity for
functions
. A function
is
injective if and only if every horizontal line intersects the graph
at most once. You can see that this is true for the graph of
.
Example. ( Injective and
surjective functions) Define
by
f is not injective, since
and
: Different
inputs can produce the same output.
f is surjective: You can see from the graph that every y-value is an
output of the function. To prove this algebraically, I have to show
that every
is an output of f.
If
,
.
If
, then
, so
.
To prove a function is surjective, take an arbitrary output y and
find an input that produces it. As in this example, your input
may be specified in terms of y, since that is given.
While you can show that a function is bijective by showing that it's injective and surjective, there's a method which is usually easier: Simply produce an inverse function.
Definition. Let
be a function
from a set X to a set Y. An inverse for f is a
function
such that:
1. For all
,
.
2. For all
,
.
The next result is extremely useful. It asserts that being bijective is the same as having an inverse.
Lemma. Let
be a function from a set X
to a set Y. f is bijective if and only if f has an inverse
.
Proof. (
) Suppose that
f is bijective. I'll construct the inverse function
.
Take
. Since f is surjective, there is an element
such that
. Moreover, x is unique: If
and
, then
. But f is injective, so
.
Define
I have defined a function
. I must show that it is the
inverse of f.
Let
. By definition of
, to compute
I must find an element
such that
. But this is easy --- just take
. Thus,
.
Going the other way, let
. By definition of
,
to compute
I must find an element
such that
. Then
, so
Therefore,
really is the inverse of f.
(
) Suppose f has an inverse
. I must
show f is bijective.
To show that f is surjective, take
. Then
, so I've found an element of X --- namely
--- which f maps to y. Therefore, f is surjective.
To show that f is injective, suppose
and
. Then
Therefore, f is injective.
Since f is injective and surjective, it's bijective.
This result says that if you want to show a function is bijective, all you have to do is to produce an inverse. In many cases, it's easy to produce an inverse, because an inverse is the function which "undoes" the effect of f.
Example. ( Proving that a
function is bijective) Define
by
. I'll show f is bijective.
The opposite of cubing is taking the cube root, so I'll guess that
the inverse is
. Check it:
Thus, g is the inverse of f. By the lemma, f is bijective.
Definition. Let A be a set. A permutation of (or {\it on}) A is a bijection
.
Proposition. The set
of permutations of a
set A is a group under function composition.
Proof. First, the composition of bijections
is a bijection: The inverse of
is
. Thus, function composition is a binary
operation on the set of bijections from A to A.
Function composition is always associative. The identity map
is a permutation of A, and serves as an identity
under function composition. Since bijective maps have inverses which
are bijections, if
is a bijection, so is
. Therefore,
is a group.
Terminology.
is called the symmetric group on A. If S has n elements, you may
as well take
(since it doesn't matter what you
call the elements). The corresponding symmetric group is
denoted
, the symmetric group on n
letters.
I'll use
to denote the identity
permutation that sends every element to itself.
One way to write a permutation is to show where each element goes. For example, suppose
This means that
The identity permutation in
is
Example. ( Computing a product of permutations) Suppose
The product
means "
first, then
".
Here's how to compute it:
So
Some people prefer to multiply permutations left-to-right: For them,
means "
first, then
". You should
probably choose one method and use it all the time, to avoid
confusing yourself. The right-to-left approach I used above is
consistent with the fact that permutations are functions: In
function notation,
means
, i.e. "g
first, then f".
Example. ( Finding the inverse of a permutation) It's easy to find the inverse of a permutation. For example, if
I can find
by simply reading
"upside-down".
For example,
, so
. In
this way, I get
I'm going to find a nicer way to represent permutations. The idea is like factoring an integer into a product of primes; in this case, the elementary pieces are called cycles.
Definition. A cycle
is a permutation which maps a finite subset
by
This cycle will be denoted
.
The cycle
has length
n. A cycle of length n has order n in
. For example,
A cycle of length 2 is called a transposition.
A transposition is a permutation that swaps two elements and leaves
everything else fixed. For example,
is the transposition that
swaps 3 and 6.
Example. ( Examples of
cycles) The cycle
in
is the permutation
Likewise,
Example. ( The inverse of a cycle) To find the inverse of a cycle, just run the cycle backwards. Thus,
Example. ( Solving a permutation equation) Solve for x:
and
. So the
equation is
Hence,
Example. ( A permutation which is not a cycle) Not every permutation is a cycle. For example, the permutation
can be written as a product of the cycles
and
. Note that the cycles
and
are disjoint --- no
element is moved by both of them. In fact, an arbitrary
permutation may be written as a product of disjoint cycles.
Every permutation may also be written as a product of transpositions.
The last example is a particular case of the following theorem.
Theorem. Every permutation on a finite set can be written as a product of disjoint cycles.
Proof. Induct on the number of elements in the set.
First, prove the result for a set with 1 element. This is easy ---
there is only one permutation (the identity), and it is the cycle
.
Next, assume that the result is known for sets with fewer than n
elements and try to prove the result for a set with n elements.
Suppose, then, that a permutation on a set with less than n elements
can be written as a product of disjoint cycles. I have to show that a
permutation on a set with n elements --- that is, an element
--- can be written as a product of disjoint cycles.
Since
is a finite group,
has finite order.
Let m be the order of
. Look at
If
,
is the cycle
Otherwise,
, so
.
Now
restricted to
is a permutation on
,
so by the inductive assumption it can be written as a product
of disjoint cycles. Then
Thus,
has been expressed as a product of disjoint cycles.
This completes the induction step, and establishes the result for all
n.
Example. ( Writing a permutation as a product of cycles) The proof actually contains an algorithm for decomposing a permutation into a product of disjoint cycles. Start with an element and follow its "orbit" under the permutation until the orbit closes up. If you've exhausted all the elements, you're done. Otherwise, pick an element which wasn't in the orbit of the first element and follow the new element's orbit. Keep going.
For example,
Here's a picture which shows how I got
: 1 goes to
6, which goes to 5, which goes to 4, which goes back to 1.
After finishing a cycle, I start with the next element that hasn't been "used" so far. I keep going until all the elements have been accounted for.
If you have a permutation like
in which an element doesn't move --- in
this case, 2 --- you don't need to write "
". 2 is simply
omitted from the cycle list, since an element which isn't listed
doesn't move.
Lemma. Disjoint cycles commute.
Proof. Roughly speaking, if two cycles move different sets of elements, then their effects are independent and it doesn't matter in which order they're applied.
If
and
are disjoint cycles, say
where
.
Then
Definition. A transposition is a permutation which interchanges two elements and leaves everything else fixed. (That is, a transposition is a cycle of length 2.)
Proposition. Every permutation is a product of transpositions.
Proof. It suffices to show that every cycle is a product of transpositions, since every permutation is a product of cycles. Just observe that
Remark. While the decomposition of a
permutation into disjoint cycles is unique up to order and
representation of the cycles (i.e.
), a
permutation may be written as a product of transpositions in
infinitely many ways. You can always tack on trivial terms of the
form
.
Example. ( Writing a permutation as a product of transpositions)
The decomposition of a permutation into a product of transpositions
is not unique.
Definition. A permutation is even if it can be written as a product of an even number of transpositions; a permutation is odd if it can be written as a product of an odd number of transpositions.
Lemma. A permutation cannot be written as a product of both an odd and an even number of transpositions.
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that
where m is even and n is odd, and all the
's and
's
are transpositions.
Since
,
Note that the identity permutation
has been written as a product of
an odd (
) number of transpositions. If this is impossible, I
have a contradiction.
It therefore suffices to show that the identity permutation
{\it
cannot} be written as a product of an odd number of transpositions.
I'll give a proof by contradiction.
Suppose m is odd and
Here is a clever idea. Consider a polynomial
in n
variables. A permutation
transforms f into another
polynomial by "permuting the variables":
For example, suppose
. Suppose
. Then
Now consider the polynomial
For example, if
,
Obviously, the identity permutation takes f to itself.
On the other hand, a transposition
for
takes the factor
to
. In other words, a factor
of -1 is introduced for each transposition. Since
contains an odd number of transpositions,
it will send f to
.
This is a contradiction: If
and
are the same permutation, they should have the same
effect on f. Therefore, the identity cannot be written as a product
of an odd number of transpositions. Hence, a permutation cannot be
written as a product of both an even and an odd number of
transpositions.
Remark. The decomposition
shows that a cycle of length n is even if n is even, and odd if n is
odd.
Definition. The
alternating group
on n letters is the subgroup of
consisting of the even permutations.
I should check that
really is a subgroup. First,
is
even, so
. Next, if
and
are
even, then
is even (decompose
into transpositions,
and write the product backwards). Therefore,
is even
(by concatenating decompositions of
and
into products of transpositions). Hence,
.
If
, there are an equal number of even and odd
permutations. Therefore,
. In fact,
is a
normal subgroup of
.
Example. Here is the multiplication table
for
:
The alternating group on 3 letters is the "rotation subgroup":
Send comments about this page to: bikenaga@marauder.millersville.edu.
Last updated: September 26, 2008
Millersville University Home Page
Copyright 2007 by Bruce Ikenaga