1
$\begingroup$

I am struggling with getting an example of two sets S and T and (onto) mapping f, where the fact S and T are isomorphic does not imply that f is also 1 - 1. If possible could you also give an example in which the fact that they are isomorphic would imply that they are 1 - 1?

Thank You!

  • 0
    What is the map $f$ doing? Do you mean to say "$S$ and $T$ are isomorphic under $f$"? If so, $f$ must be 1-1, as this is part of the definition of isomorphism.2011-09-19
  • 0
    Let $S$ and $T$ be two one-element sets. Then there is a unique function $S \to T$ and it is bijective. Conversely, if $S$ and $T$ are in bijection but there is a map $S \to T$ which is not bijective, then $T$ must contain at least two elements.2011-09-19
  • 4
    Any old $f$ between two isomorphic sets need not be a witness to the fact that $S$ and $T$ are isomorphic, so it does not have to be 1-to-1. E.g., $S=\{a,b\}$, $T=\{1,2\}$ are bijectable/isomorphic as sets, but $f\colon S\to T$ given by $f(a)=f(b)=1$ is a perfectly fine function that is not 1-to-1.2011-09-19
  • 0
    To combine Zhen and Arturo's answers: a constant function on a set of more than one element will do the trick.2011-09-19
  • 0
    @IAmBrianDawkins It seems Jeff wanted a function that is onto but not one-to-one, in which case Zhen and Arturo's answers apply only to sets of 2 elements. The function $h:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $h=c$ is certainly not onto.2011-10-20
  • 0
    @barf Thank you for pointing that out. The revision history indicates that "(onto)" might have been added after I commented.2011-10-21
  • 0
    @Iambriandawkins Ah, I will be sure to check that next time before 'correcting'!2011-10-21

3 Answers 3