As given in my lectures and several other areas, the definition of a surjective function is "a function f from a set X to a set Y is surjective (or onto), or a surjection, if every element y in Y has a corresponding element x in X such that f(x) = y".
The issue I am having is proving that a non-injective function is surjective. Both in my lectures and in numerous online sources, the method used has always been to find an inverse function.
More precisely, $f(x)=y \iff f^{-1} (f(x)) = f^{-1} (y) \iff x=f^{-1} (y) $ so clearly finding an inverse function proves surjectivivity. However, I cannot see how this holds if we have a function which is not invertible (or indeed, not injective), since in this case we cannot use $f^{-1}$.
What have I missed? I feel that if my blindness is anywhere, it is in my use of the definition.
To show that a function is surjective, you show that every element in the co-domain is mapped to by at least one element of the domain. Then $f^{-1}(y)$ is referred to as the pre-image of $y$. This pre-image could potentially be nothing, one element, or any number of elements. For example, if $f(x)=1, 0\leq x \leq 1 $, then $f^{-1}(1)$ is the interval $[0, 1]$.
You have the correct approach for the problem. An "inverse" $f^{-1}$ of $f$ will find you at least one element in the domain for each in the codomain, it just won't be a function.