Here is the connexion between function properties and invertibility.
Let be a function between nonempty sets.
has a left inverse if and only if it is injective.
has a right inverse if and only if it is surjective.
has a two sided inverse if and only if it is bijective.
ONLY IF. Let be a left inverse to , so . Suppose . Then applying to both sides, , so .
IF. Let be injective. Choose any in the domain of . Define as follows. Each in is either in the image of or not. If is in the image of , it equals for a unique in (uniqueness is because of the injectivity of ), so define . If is not in the image of , define . Clearly .
IF. Suppose is surjective. Let . Then is in the image of , so we can choose an element such that . This defines a function which is evidently a right inverse to .
ONLY IF. Suppose has a right inverse , so . If then , so . Every element of is therefore in the image of , so is onto.
If has a left inverse and a right inverse, it is injective (by part 1 of this theorem) and surjective (by part 2), so is a bijection. Conversely if is a bijection it has a left inverse and a right inverse by part 1 and part 2 again. We will now show , so that is a two sided inverse to .
Proposition 2.6.1 | ||||
associativity | ||||
so is a two sided inverse of . ∎
Figure 2.11 illustrates the construction in part 1 of the theorem. Arrows from left to right show where sends each element of . Arrows from right to left show where the left inverse we have constructed sends each element of .
If is invertible, we write for the two sided inverse of .
It makes sense to talk about the two sided inverse to because there really is only one: if and are two sided inverses of then certainly is a left inverse and is a right inverse, so the argument in the proof of part 3 of the theorem above shows .
If and are invertible then so is , and .
is a left inverse to , because
associativity | ||||
A similar calculation shows that it is a right inverse as well. ∎
It is important to get this the right way round. The inverse of is not normally , indeed this composition may not even make sense. The correct result is easy to remember when you think about getting dressed. Each morning you put on your socks, then you put on your shoes: if is the put-on-socks function and is the put-on-shoes function then you apply the function to your feet. The inverse of this is taking off your shoes, then taking off your socks: . Not the other way round — it’s not even (normally) possible to take off your socks, then take off your shoes, just as it is not normally possible to form the composition in the context of the theorem above.33 3 The shoes and socks illustration comes from Gilbert Strang’s famous 18.06 linear algebra course.
A similar result applies when you compose more than two invertible functions: if are invertible and if the composition
makes sense, it is also invertible and its inverse is