Relative homology of a retract: Help to understand a proof.
$begingroup$
I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:
Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.
Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.
Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?
algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:
Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.
Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.
Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?
algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:
Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.
Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.
Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?
algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
$endgroup$
I need some help to understand the proof of the following theorem:
Theorem If $Asubset X$ is a retract of $X$ then, $$H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A),$$ all $ngeq 0$.
Proof. Let $r:Xlongrightarrow A$ be a retraction. Since $rcirc imath=id_A$ it follows $r_*circ imath_*=id_{H_n(A)}$ hence $imath_*$ is injective. Consider the exact homology sequence of the pair $(X, A)$: $$ldotslongrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X, A)stackrel{partial}{longrightarrow}H_{n-1}(A)longrightarrowldots$$ Since $imath_*$ is injective we find $textrm{ker}(imath_*)=0=textrm{im}(partial)$. But this says $jmath_*:H_n(X)longrightarrow H_n(X, A)$ is onto for all $ngeq 0$. In other words, for all $ngeq 0$, we have a short exact sequence $$0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0,$$ which splits. Therefore, for all $ngeq 0$, $H_n(X)simeq H_n(A)oplus H_n(X, A)$.
Question: Where did the $0's$ in $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ come from?
algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
algebraic-topology homology-cohomology
edited May 4 '14 at 0:27
PtF
asked May 3 '14 at 23:59
PtFPtF
3,94921733
3,94921733
1
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54
1
1
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
1
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.
Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below
Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$
Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)
$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$
and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.
This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f780239%2frelative-homology-of-a-retract-help-to-understand-a-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.
Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.
Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.
Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.
$endgroup$
We have ${rm im}(partial)=0$, so $partial=0$ as map $H_n(X,A)to H_{n-1}(A)$, so it factors through the zero object: $H_n(X,A)to 0to H_{n-1}(A)$. Extending the long exact sequence with these $0$'s will keep the exactness.
Anyway, injectivity of a map $f$ is equivalent to $ker f=0$, i.e. $0to A overset{f}to B$ is exact, and dually, surjectivity is equivalent to $Ato Bto 0$ being exact.
answered May 4 '14 at 0:56
BerciBerci
60.2k23672
60.2k23672
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
$begingroup$
Your second observation was the key. I was trying to deduce the short exact sequence from the long one but what happens is that I'm considering a new sequence $0longrightarrow H_n(A)stackrel{imath_*}{longrightarrow} H_n(X)stackrel{jmath_*}{longrightarrow}H_n(X, A)longrightarrow 0$ which is exact because $imath_*$ is injective and $jmath_*$ is surjective..
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 1:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below
Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$
Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)
$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$
and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.
This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below
Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$
Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)
$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$
and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.
This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below
Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$
Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)
$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$
and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.
This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.
$endgroup$
The reason why one can obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ in the proof is expressed generally by the result below
Result: Consider an exact sequence of abelian groups $$dots to C_{n+1} to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to A_{n-1} xrightarrow{i_{n-1}} B_{n-1} xrightarrow{p_{n-1}} C_{n-1} to dots$$ in which every third map $i_n$ is injective. Then the sequence $$0 to A_n xrightarrow{i_n} B_n xrightarrow{p_n} C_n to 0$$ is exact for all $n$
Now in the proof supplied in the question, we have the following long exact sequence (of abelian groups)
$$dots H_{n+1}(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) xrightarrow{partial} H_{n-1}(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_{n-1}(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_{n-1}(X, A) todots$$
and every third map $i_*$ is injective, so by the result above we obtain a short exact sequence $0 to H_n(A) xrightarrow{i_*} H_n(X) xrightarrow{j_*} H_n(X, A) to 0$ as desired.
This result quoted above is Exercise 5.14 (i) in Introduction to Algebriac Topology by J. Rotman. It is not too difficult to prove this result.
answered Dec 8 '18 at 13:24
PerturbativePerturbative
4,21611551
4,21611551
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f780239%2frelative-homology-of-a-retract-help-to-understand-a-proof%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
They came from injectivity and surjectivity.
$endgroup$
– Moishe Cohen
May 4 '14 at 0:32
$begingroup$
can you explain this fact more generally?
$endgroup$
– PtF
May 4 '14 at 0:50
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/101570/…
$endgroup$
– Thomas Rot
May 4 '14 at 0:54