We discuss some lemmas for functions on sets, which I wrote up some time ago to clarify and better understand the nature of .
For any function (not just invertible) and for any sets , is
equivalent to
?
Left-to-right: assume , so
, and put
. We WTS
. If
, then by definition of
,
, so then
. If
, then
, so
for some
. Is it possible that
can be chosen outside of
? It seems like it can be for a non-injective
. Let’s make this concrete:
,
, then
, but
. Thus, this isn’t necessarily true if
is non-injective. If
is injective, then the LTR works. Thus, it is not generally the case that
(a restatement of LTR.) We do however always have
, with equality if
is injective. In fact, we can say
with equality if and only if
is injective, since if
is not injective we can always find
with
, and then just pick
so that
and
.
I suspect that must be surjective for RTL to work, with a similar inequality and an equality condition of surjectivity. Indeed, I suspect a reverse inequality:
. Let us prove this. Let
, so that there exists
with
. Then, by definition of
,
, and
. But in the other direction, let
, and assume
is surjective. Then, by surjectivity of
, exists
with
, so
. Thus,
. But if
is not surjective, then we can choose
that has an
such that
is not the image of any
by
, or
for any
. Then there is no way that
, and thus we have inequality.
Written April 28, 2022.
