Passing to the quotient (function)

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is currently being refactored (along with many others)
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. It just means the page doesn't conform to the style of the site (usually due to age) or a better way of presenting the information has been discovered.
This page is waiting for a final review, then this notice will be removed.
See Passing to the quotient for a disambiguation of this term.

Statement

f passing to the quotient
Given a function, f:XY and another function, w:XW[Note 1] then "f may be factored through w" if[1]:

If this condition is met then f induces a mapping, ˜f:WY, such that f=˜fw

(equivalently, the diagram on the right commutes).

  • ˜f:WX may be given explicitly as: ˜f:vf(w1(v))[Note 3]
    • We may also write ˜f=fw1 but this is a significant abuse of notation and should be avoided! It is safe to use here because of the "well-defined"-ness of ˜f

We may then say:

  • "f may be factored through w to ˜f" or "f descends to the quotient via w to give ˜f"

Claims:

  1. ˜f:WY is given unambiguously by ˜f:vf(w1(v))
  2. If w:XW is surjective then ˜f:WY is unique - the only function (:WY) such that the diagram commutes
  3. If f:XY is surjective then ˜f:WY is surjective also

Caveats

The following are good points to keep in mind when dealing with situations like this:

  • Remembering the requirements:
    We want to induce a function ˜f:WY such that all the information of f is "distilled" into w, notice that:
    • if w(x)=w(y) then ˜f(w(x))=˜f(w(y)) just by composition of functions, regardless of ˜f!
    • so if f(x)f(y) but w(x)=w(y) then we're screwed and cannot use this.
    So it is easy to see that we require [w(x)=w(y)][f(x)=f(y)] in order to proceed.

Proof of claims

Grade: A
This page requires one or more proofs to be filled in, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable. Unless there are any caveats mentioned below the statement comes from a reliable source. As always, Warnings and limitations will be clearly shown and possibly highlighted if very important (see template:Caution et al).
The message provided is:
Most of the proofs are done, I've done the surjective one like 3 times (CHECK THE TALK PAGE! SO YOU DON'T DO IT A FOURTH!) Also:
  • Move the proofs into sub-pages. It is just so much neater!
[Expand]

Claim: the induced function, ˜f exists and is given unambiguously by ˜f:vf(w1(v))

[Expand]

Claim: if w is surjective then the induced ˜f is unique


See also


TODO: Factoring a map through the canonical projection of the equivalence relation it generates


Notes

  1. Jump up I have chosen W to mean "whatever"
  2. Jump up We can state this in 2 other equivalent ways:
    1. x,yX[w(x)=w(y)f(x)=f(y)]
    2. x,yX[f(x)f(y)w(x)w(y)]
    See equivalent conditions to being constant on the fibres of a map for proofs and more details
  3. Jump up Of course, only bijections have inverse functions, we indulge in the common practice of using w1(v) to mean w1({v}), in general for sets A and B and a mapping f:AB we use f1(C) to denote (for some CP(B) (a subset of X)) the pre-image of C under the function f, f1(C):={aA | f(a)C}. Just as for DP(A) (a subset of A) we use f(D) to denote the image of D under f, namely: f(D):={f(d)B | dD}
    [Expand]Caution: Writing ˜f:vf(w1(v)) is dangerous as it may not be "well-defined"

References

  1. Jump up Alec's own work, "distilled" from passing to the quotient (topology) which is defined by Mond (2013, Topology) and Lee (Intro to Top manifolds), by further abstracting the claim
  2. Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 This is my (Alec's) own work