proving that f:N^2->N is bijective
$begingroup$
I'v got a function $f:omega^2toomega$ defined
$$
f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n
$$
This function suppose to be a bijection between $omega$ and $omega^2$, but I can't find a simple proof that it's bijective.
$f$ noppose to order $omega^2$ like this

Every proof I saw (in my undergrad degree, for example) was just this picture, with no further proof.
natural-numbers
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'v got a function $f:omega^2toomega$ defined
$$
f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n
$$
This function suppose to be a bijection between $omega$ and $omega^2$, but I can't find a simple proof that it's bijective.
$f$ noppose to order $omega^2$ like this

Every proof I saw (in my undergrad degree, for example) was just this picture, with no further proof.
natural-numbers
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
1
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
1
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'v got a function $f:omega^2toomega$ defined
$$
f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n
$$
This function suppose to be a bijection between $omega$ and $omega^2$, but I can't find a simple proof that it's bijective.
$f$ noppose to order $omega^2$ like this

Every proof I saw (in my undergrad degree, for example) was just this picture, with no further proof.
natural-numbers
$endgroup$
I'v got a function $f:omega^2toomega$ defined
$$
f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n
$$
This function suppose to be a bijection between $omega$ and $omega^2$, but I can't find a simple proof that it's bijective.
$f$ noppose to order $omega^2$ like this

Every proof I saw (in my undergrad degree, for example) was just this picture, with no further proof.
natural-numbers
natural-numbers
asked Dec 23 '18 at 0:40
Barak OhanaBarak Ohana
224
224
2
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
1
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
1
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
1
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
1
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29
2
2
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
1
1
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
1
1
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well, you want a proof.
Let $m in mathbb N$
We want to prove that there exist a unique pair of $n,k$ so that
$f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n =m$
Let $w_m$ be the smallest natural number where $1 + 2 + ..... + w_m = sum_{j=1}^{w_m} frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 ge m$.
We know such a number exists as: $S= {kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$ is not empty because $m in S$ as $1 + .... + m > m$. And by well-ordering principal $S$ has a least element.
So $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 ge m$ so $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2- m ge 0$ so let $n = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2-m in mathbb N$.
Now $n < w_m$ because otherwise if $n ge w_m$
$1 + 2 + ..... + (w_m - 1) = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 -w_m ge frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 - n = m$
But $w_m$ was the smallest such number.
Let $k = w_m -n$.
So $f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n=$
$frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 + (m -frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2) = m$.
So $f$ is onto.
Now if for any $a+b$ if $a + b > n+k$
then $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 + b ge frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 > m$ (because we proved $n+k = min S=min{kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$
And if $a+b < n+k$ then $m - (1 + 2 + ...... + a+b) ge (a+b) +1$ (because $a+bnot in S$.)
So if $f(a,b) = f(n,k)=m$ then $a+b = n+k$.
So $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ and so $b = m - frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = m - frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ so $b = n$.
So $a = (a+b)-b = (n+k)-n = k$.
So $(n,k)$ is a unique value.
So $f$ is one-to-one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intuitive argument is that $left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)$ is even and non-negative so clearly this is a function $omega^2 to omega$, while $f(0,k)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2}$ giving the triangle numbers $0,1,3,6,10, ldots$ for $k=0,1,2,3,4,ldots$, and so $f(m,k-m)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2} +m$ for $0 le m le k$ fills the gaps between the triangle numbers
More explicitly, if we had a function which was in a sense the inverse of the triangle numbers, say $g(x)=bigl{lfloor} frac{sqrt{8x+1}-1}{2}bigr{rfloor}$ and another giving a sort of remainder, say $h(x)=x-frac{g(x)(g(x)+1)}2$, then we could construct an actual inverse of $f$ as $i:omega to omega^2$ with $i(x) = Big(h(x), g(x)-h(x)Big)$ in the sense that $i(f(n,k))=(n,k)$ and $f(i(x))=x$. If you have a two-way inverse then you have a bijection
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049970%2fproving-that-fn2-n-is-bijective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Well, you want a proof.
Let $m in mathbb N$
We want to prove that there exist a unique pair of $n,k$ so that
$f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n =m$
Let $w_m$ be the smallest natural number where $1 + 2 + ..... + w_m = sum_{j=1}^{w_m} frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 ge m$.
We know such a number exists as: $S= {kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$ is not empty because $m in S$ as $1 + .... + m > m$. And by well-ordering principal $S$ has a least element.
So $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 ge m$ so $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2- m ge 0$ so let $n = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2-m in mathbb N$.
Now $n < w_m$ because otherwise if $n ge w_m$
$1 + 2 + ..... + (w_m - 1) = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 -w_m ge frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 - n = m$
But $w_m$ was the smallest such number.
Let $k = w_m -n$.
So $f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n=$
$frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 + (m -frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2) = m$.
So $f$ is onto.
Now if for any $a+b$ if $a + b > n+k$
then $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 + b ge frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 > m$ (because we proved $n+k = min S=min{kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$
And if $a+b < n+k$ then $m - (1 + 2 + ...... + a+b) ge (a+b) +1$ (because $a+bnot in S$.)
So if $f(a,b) = f(n,k)=m$ then $a+b = n+k$.
So $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ and so $b = m - frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = m - frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ so $b = n$.
So $a = (a+b)-b = (n+k)-n = k$.
So $(n,k)$ is a unique value.
So $f$ is one-to-one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, you want a proof.
Let $m in mathbb N$
We want to prove that there exist a unique pair of $n,k$ so that
$f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n =m$
Let $w_m$ be the smallest natural number where $1 + 2 + ..... + w_m = sum_{j=1}^{w_m} frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 ge m$.
We know such a number exists as: $S= {kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$ is not empty because $m in S$ as $1 + .... + m > m$. And by well-ordering principal $S$ has a least element.
So $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 ge m$ so $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2- m ge 0$ so let $n = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2-m in mathbb N$.
Now $n < w_m$ because otherwise if $n ge w_m$
$1 + 2 + ..... + (w_m - 1) = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 -w_m ge frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 - n = m$
But $w_m$ was the smallest such number.
Let $k = w_m -n$.
So $f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n=$
$frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 + (m -frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2) = m$.
So $f$ is onto.
Now if for any $a+b$ if $a + b > n+k$
then $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 + b ge frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 > m$ (because we proved $n+k = min S=min{kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$
And if $a+b < n+k$ then $m - (1 + 2 + ...... + a+b) ge (a+b) +1$ (because $a+bnot in S$.)
So if $f(a,b) = f(n,k)=m$ then $a+b = n+k$.
So $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ and so $b = m - frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = m - frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ so $b = n$.
So $a = (a+b)-b = (n+k)-n = k$.
So $(n,k)$ is a unique value.
So $f$ is one-to-one.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, you want a proof.
Let $m in mathbb N$
We want to prove that there exist a unique pair of $n,k$ so that
$f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n =m$
Let $w_m$ be the smallest natural number where $1 + 2 + ..... + w_m = sum_{j=1}^{w_m} frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 ge m$.
We know such a number exists as: $S= {kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$ is not empty because $m in S$ as $1 + .... + m > m$. And by well-ordering principal $S$ has a least element.
So $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 ge m$ so $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2- m ge 0$ so let $n = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2-m in mathbb N$.
Now $n < w_m$ because otherwise if $n ge w_m$
$1 + 2 + ..... + (w_m - 1) = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 -w_m ge frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 - n = m$
But $w_m$ was the smallest such number.
Let $k = w_m -n$.
So $f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n=$
$frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 + (m -frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2) = m$.
So $f$ is onto.
Now if for any $a+b$ if $a + b > n+k$
then $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 + b ge frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 > m$ (because we proved $n+k = min S=min{kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$
And if $a+b < n+k$ then $m - (1 + 2 + ...... + a+b) ge (a+b) +1$ (because $a+bnot in S$.)
So if $f(a,b) = f(n,k)=m$ then $a+b = n+k$.
So $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ and so $b = m - frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = m - frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ so $b = n$.
So $a = (a+b)-b = (n+k)-n = k$.
So $(n,k)$ is a unique value.
So $f$ is one-to-one.
$endgroup$
Well, you want a proof.
Let $m in mathbb N$
We want to prove that there exist a unique pair of $n,k$ so that
$f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n =m$
Let $w_m$ be the smallest natural number where $1 + 2 + ..... + w_m = sum_{j=1}^{w_m} frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 ge m$.
We know such a number exists as: $S= {kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$ is not empty because $m in S$ as $1 + .... + m > m$. And by well-ordering principal $S$ has a least element.
So $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 ge m$ so $frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2- m ge 0$ so let $n = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2-m in mathbb N$.
Now $n < w_m$ because otherwise if $n ge w_m$
$1 + 2 + ..... + (w_m - 1) = frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 -w_m ge frac {w_m(w_m+1)}2 - n = m$
But $w_m$ was the smallest such number.
Let $k = w_m -n$.
So $f(n,k)=frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}+n=$
$frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2 + (m -frac {w_m(w_m + 1)}2) = m$.
So $f$ is onto.
Now if for any $a+b$ if $a + b > n+k$
then $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 + b ge frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 > m$ (because we proved $n+k = min S=min{kin mathbb N| 1+2+3+....k ge m}$
And if $a+b < n+k$ then $m - (1 + 2 + ...... + a+b) ge (a+b) +1$ (because $a+bnot in S$.)
So if $f(a,b) = f(n,k)=m$ then $a+b = n+k$.
So $frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ and so $b = m - frac {(a+b)(a+b+1)}2 = m - frac{left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)}{2}$ so $b = n$.
So $a = (a+b)-b = (n+k)-n = k$.
So $(n,k)$ is a unique value.
So $f$ is one-to-one.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 2:32
fleabloodfleablood
71.1k22686
71.1k22686
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
I didn't quite understand why, in the ono-to-one proof we got $ m−(1+2+......+a+b)geq(a+b)+1 $.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 10:52
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
$begingroup$
$w_m = n+k$ was the smallest such number where the sum is $ge m$. If $a+b > n+k$ then $1 + ..... + (a+b) > 1 + ..... + (n+k) ge m$. If $a+b < n+k$ then $1 + .... + (a+b) not ge m$
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Dec 23 '18 at 17:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intuitive argument is that $left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)$ is even and non-negative so clearly this is a function $omega^2 to omega$, while $f(0,k)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2}$ giving the triangle numbers $0,1,3,6,10, ldots$ for $k=0,1,2,3,4,ldots$, and so $f(m,k-m)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2} +m$ for $0 le m le k$ fills the gaps between the triangle numbers
More explicitly, if we had a function which was in a sense the inverse of the triangle numbers, say $g(x)=bigl{lfloor} frac{sqrt{8x+1}-1}{2}bigr{rfloor}$ and another giving a sort of remainder, say $h(x)=x-frac{g(x)(g(x)+1)}2$, then we could construct an actual inverse of $f$ as $i:omega to omega^2$ with $i(x) = Big(h(x), g(x)-h(x)Big)$ in the sense that $i(f(n,k))=(n,k)$ and $f(i(x))=x$. If you have a two-way inverse then you have a bijection
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intuitive argument is that $left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)$ is even and non-negative so clearly this is a function $omega^2 to omega$, while $f(0,k)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2}$ giving the triangle numbers $0,1,3,6,10, ldots$ for $k=0,1,2,3,4,ldots$, and so $f(m,k-m)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2} +m$ for $0 le m le k$ fills the gaps between the triangle numbers
More explicitly, if we had a function which was in a sense the inverse of the triangle numbers, say $g(x)=bigl{lfloor} frac{sqrt{8x+1}-1}{2}bigr{rfloor}$ and another giving a sort of remainder, say $h(x)=x-frac{g(x)(g(x)+1)}2$, then we could construct an actual inverse of $f$ as $i:omega to omega^2$ with $i(x) = Big(h(x), g(x)-h(x)Big)$ in the sense that $i(f(n,k))=(n,k)$ and $f(i(x))=x$. If you have a two-way inverse then you have a bijection
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The intuitive argument is that $left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)$ is even and non-negative so clearly this is a function $omega^2 to omega$, while $f(0,k)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2}$ giving the triangle numbers $0,1,3,6,10, ldots$ for $k=0,1,2,3,4,ldots$, and so $f(m,k-m)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2} +m$ for $0 le m le k$ fills the gaps between the triangle numbers
More explicitly, if we had a function which was in a sense the inverse of the triangle numbers, say $g(x)=bigl{lfloor} frac{sqrt{8x+1}-1}{2}bigr{rfloor}$ and another giving a sort of remainder, say $h(x)=x-frac{g(x)(g(x)+1)}2$, then we could construct an actual inverse of $f$ as $i:omega to omega^2$ with $i(x) = Big(h(x), g(x)-h(x)Big)$ in the sense that $i(f(n,k))=(n,k)$ and $f(i(x))=x$. If you have a two-way inverse then you have a bijection
$endgroup$
The intuitive argument is that $left(n+k+1right)left(n+kright)$ is even and non-negative so clearly this is a function $omega^2 to omega$, while $f(0,k)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2}$ giving the triangle numbers $0,1,3,6,10, ldots$ for $k=0,1,2,3,4,ldots$, and so $f(m,k-m)=frac{kleft(k+1right)}{2} +m$ for $0 le m le k$ fills the gaps between the triangle numbers
More explicitly, if we had a function which was in a sense the inverse of the triangle numbers, say $g(x)=bigl{lfloor} frac{sqrt{8x+1}-1}{2}bigr{rfloor}$ and another giving a sort of remainder, say $h(x)=x-frac{g(x)(g(x)+1)}2$, then we could construct an actual inverse of $f$ as $i:omega to omega^2$ with $i(x) = Big(h(x), g(x)-h(x)Big)$ in the sense that $i(f(n,k))=(n,k)$ and $f(i(x))=x$. If you have a two-way inverse then you have a bijection
edited Dec 23 '18 at 1:59
answered Dec 23 '18 at 1:41
HenryHenry
100k480167
100k480167
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
great way to show that $f$ is surjective! I don't see how $g$ make sense as an inverse.
$endgroup$
– Barak Ohana
Dec 23 '18 at 2:00
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@user3195363 for example $g(6)=3$ and $g(10)=4$ which is what you want when inverting triangle numbers. But it is only an inverse "in a sense" and one-way since you also have $g(7)=3$
$endgroup$
– Henry
Dec 23 '18 at 2:05
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3049970%2fproving-that-fn2-n-is-bijective%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function#Cantor_pairing_function
$endgroup$
– Noah Schweber
Dec 23 '18 at 0:51
1
$begingroup$
"Proof by pictures" can be some of the simplest kinds of proof. As the picture suggests, if we were to go through the entries of the diagonals going from up-left to down-right, starting from the smallest such diagonal and progressively getting larger, this corresponds to going through the outputs as $0,1,2,3,4,dots$ going through each of the natural numbers in sequence. Showing that the function acts as described takes a bit of knowledge about triangular numbers and can be proven by induction over the sum of $n+k$ as well as $n$.
$endgroup$
– JMoravitz
Dec 23 '18 at 0:56
$begingroup$
Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3010935/…
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:22
$begingroup$
What is $omega$?
$endgroup$
– Michael
Dec 23 '18 at 1:24
1
$begingroup$
@Michael. $omega =mathbb{N}$. This is a convention from cardinal arithmetic.
$endgroup$
– Mason
Dec 23 '18 at 1:29