trixitium
- 7
- 0
I'm reading the first chapter of Topology by Munkres. There we can see:
"if f is bijective, there exists a function from B to A called the inverse of f.
(...)
As another situation where care is needed, we note that it is not in general true that
f^{-1}(f(A_0) = A_0 and f(f^{-1}(B_0)) = B_0. The relevant rules, which we leave you to check, are the following: If f: A \rightarrow B and A_0 \subset A and B_0 \subset B, then
A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0)) and f(f^{-1}(B_0) \subset B_0
The first inclusion is equality if f is injective and the second inclusion is equality if f is surjective."
Are there any sense in talking about inverse considering that f is not injective or surjective?
"if f is bijective, there exists a function from B to A called the inverse of f.
(...)
As another situation where care is needed, we note that it is not in general true that
f^{-1}(f(A_0) = A_0 and f(f^{-1}(B_0)) = B_0. The relevant rules, which we leave you to check, are the following: If f: A \rightarrow B and A_0 \subset A and B_0 \subset B, then
A_0 \subset f^{-1}(f(A_0)) and f(f^{-1}(B_0) \subset B_0
The first inclusion is equality if f is injective and the second inclusion is equality if f is surjective."
Are there any sense in talking about inverse considering that f is not injective or surjective?