A student wishes to prove that there is no real-valued function , defined for every real number, such that
The student assumes that such a function exists and writes the following proof, with one line missing.
Suppose . Substituting and into gives .
[Missing line]
Hence, if , then for every real , which is incompatible with . It follows that is one-to-one. But taking , first with and then with , gives
Applying the one-to-one property twice gives , a contradiction.
Which of the following fills the gap by valid reasoning, without assuming in advance that is one-to-one?
AFor every real , translating the inputs preserves equality, so . Hence , giving .
BFor every real , gives . Cancelling gives , so .
CSince , either or . In the latter case, with and gives , so .
DFor every real , gives . Applying the implication already established for equal function values, then subtracting , gives .
EThe equality gives . Taking in therefore gives , so .
FFor every real , gives , and hence . Taking square roots gives , so .