MHB Split Monomorphisma .... Bland Definition 3.2.2 & Proposition 3.2.3 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Split
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules" ...

Currently I am focused on Section 3.2 Exact Sequences in $$\text{Mod}_R$$ ... ...

I need some help in order to fully understand Definition 3.2.2 and Proposition 3.2.3 ...

Definition 3.2.2 and Proposition 3.2.3 read as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8072
In Definition 3.2.2 we read that $$f'f = \text{id}_{M_1}$$ ... ... BUT ... ... I thought that $$f'f$$ was only defined on $$f(M) = \text{Im } f $$ ... ... what then happens to elements $$x \in M$$ that are outside of $$f(M) = \text{Im } f$$ ... ... see Fig. 1 below ...
View attachment 8073Note that in the proof of Proposition 3.2.3 we read:" ... ... If $$x \in M$$, then $$f'(x) \in M_1$$ ... ... " But ... how does this work for $$x$$ outside of $$f(M) = \text{Im } f $$ such as $$x$$ shown in Fig. 1 above?
I would be grateful if someone could explain how Definition 3.2.2 "works" ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, Peter.

The condition that needs to occur in order to form the composition $f'f$ (or any function composition) is that $f$'s range must be a subset of $f'$'s domain. Since $f'$ is defined on all of $M$, there is no issue forming $f'f$.

Even when $x\in M-f(M_{1})$, $f'(x)$ still exists because $f'$ is defined on all of $M$.
 
GJA said:
Hi, Peter.

The condition that needs to occur in order to form the composition $f'f$ (or any function composition) is that $f$'s range must be a subset of $f'$'s domain. Since $f'$ is defined on all of $M$, there is no issue forming $f'f$.

Even when $x\in M-f(M_{1})$, $f'(x)$ still exists because $f'$ is defined on all of $M$.

Thanks GJA ...

Appreciate your help...

Peter
 
Thread 'Derivation of equations of stress tensor transformation'
Hello ! I derived equations of stress tensor 2D transformation. Some details: I have plane ABCD in two cases (see top on the pic) and I know tensor components for case 1 only. Only plane ABCD rotate in two cases (top of the picture) but not coordinate system. Coordinate system rotates only on the bottom of picture. I want to obtain expression that connects tensor for case 1 and tensor for case 2. My attempt: Are these equations correct? Is there more easier expression for stress tensor...
Back
Top