Proof of $f(A)=f(A-B)+f(B)$ when $f$ is a injective map











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I want to prove the following proposition:



Let $A$ be a set, $B$ be a subset of $A$, and $f: Ato B$ be a injective map, then $f(A) = f(A-B) + f(B).$



Could you check my proof below?



Assume $f(A-B)cap f(B) neq emptyset$. For $xin f(A-B)cap f(B)$ there exist $ain A$ which satisfies $f(a)=x$ and $bin A-B$ which satisfies $f(b)=x$. However, this contradicts the original assumption that $f$ is injective: $forall a, b in A, f(a)=f(b)Rightarrow a=b$, thus the above is impossible. Thus, $f(A-B)cap f(B)=emptyset$ and hence $f(A)=f(A-B)+f(B)$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
    – Git Gud
    Nov 17 at 9:38










  • @GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 9:43






  • 1




    There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 9:59















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I want to prove the following proposition:



Let $A$ be a set, $B$ be a subset of $A$, and $f: Ato B$ be a injective map, then $f(A) = f(A-B) + f(B).$



Could you check my proof below?



Assume $f(A-B)cap f(B) neq emptyset$. For $xin f(A-B)cap f(B)$ there exist $ain A$ which satisfies $f(a)=x$ and $bin A-B$ which satisfies $f(b)=x$. However, this contradicts the original assumption that $f$ is injective: $forall a, b in A, f(a)=f(b)Rightarrow a=b$, thus the above is impossible. Thus, $f(A-B)cap f(B)=emptyset$ and hence $f(A)=f(A-B)+f(B)$.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
    – Git Gud
    Nov 17 at 9:38










  • @GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 9:43






  • 1




    There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 9:59













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I want to prove the following proposition:



Let $A$ be a set, $B$ be a subset of $A$, and $f: Ato B$ be a injective map, then $f(A) = f(A-B) + f(B).$



Could you check my proof below?



Assume $f(A-B)cap f(B) neq emptyset$. For $xin f(A-B)cap f(B)$ there exist $ain A$ which satisfies $f(a)=x$ and $bin A-B$ which satisfies $f(b)=x$. However, this contradicts the original assumption that $f$ is injective: $forall a, b in A, f(a)=f(b)Rightarrow a=b$, thus the above is impossible. Thus, $f(A-B)cap f(B)=emptyset$ and hence $f(A)=f(A-B)+f(B)$.










share|cite|improve this question















I want to prove the following proposition:



Let $A$ be a set, $B$ be a subset of $A$, and $f: Ato B$ be a injective map, then $f(A) = f(A-B) + f(B).$



Could you check my proof below?



Assume $f(A-B)cap f(B) neq emptyset$. For $xin f(A-B)cap f(B)$ there exist $ain A$ which satisfies $f(a)=x$ and $bin A-B$ which satisfies $f(b)=x$. However, this contradicts the original assumption that $f$ is injective: $forall a, b in A, f(a)=f(b)Rightarrow a=b$, thus the above is impossible. Thus, $f(A-B)cap f(B)=emptyset$ and hence $f(A)=f(A-B)+f(B)$.







proof-verification elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 17 at 9:41

























asked Nov 17 at 9:29









oremata

325




325








  • 3




    Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
    – Git Gud
    Nov 17 at 9:38










  • @GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 9:43






  • 1




    There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 9:59














  • 3




    Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
    – Git Gud
    Nov 17 at 9:38










  • @GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 9:43






  • 1




    There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 9:59








3




3




Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
– Git Gud
Nov 17 at 9:38




Terribly confusing. In the question statement you have a plus sign where a $cup$ is expected. Then right at the start of your proof you consider an intersection of sets, for some reason. This is followed by a dubious argument and you eventually finalize with incoherent conclusions with no sight of an expected double inclusion proof.
– Git Gud
Nov 17 at 9:38












@GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
– oremata
Nov 17 at 9:43




@GitGud I am so sorry, it was a typo.
– oremata
Nov 17 at 9:43




1




1




There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
– Stefan Mesken
Nov 17 at 9:59




There is another typo: You want to say that there is an $b in B$ and an $a in A setminus B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$.
– Stefan Mesken
Nov 17 at 9:59










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










Other than the typo I've pointed out in a comment, your proof is fine.



Note, however, that you don't need that $B subseteq A$. The following is true:



Lemma. Let $f colon A to B$ be injective, $C subseteq D subseteq A$ Then
$$f[D] = f[D setminus C] mathbin{dot{cup}} f[C].$$



(The proof is virtually the same as the one you've given.)



Also note that injectivity is necessary:



Lemma. If $f colon A to B$ is not injective, then there is some $C subseteq A$ such that
$$f[A setminus C] cap f[C] neq emptyset.$$



I'll leave the easy proof to you as an exercise. (Hint: You can choose $C$ to be a singleton.)






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:12










  • @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:18










  • I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:27










  • @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:30










  • If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
    – egreg
    Nov 17 at 10:41


















up vote
0
down vote













I assume that $+$ denotes disjoint union. Your idea is good, but you lose yourself in explanations.



The proof that $f(A)=f(A-B)cup f(B)$ is easy and doesn't require injectivity.



Now the proof the sets are disjoint. More generally,




if $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint sets and $f(X)cap f(Y)neemptyset$, then $f$ is not injective.




Indeed, if $zin f(X)cap f(Y)$, then $z=f(x)=f(y)$, with $xin X$ and $yin Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint, $xne y$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    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',
    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
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002134%2fproof-of-fa-fa-bfb-when-f-is-a-injective-map%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








    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    Other than the typo I've pointed out in a comment, your proof is fine.



    Note, however, that you don't need that $B subseteq A$. The following is true:



    Lemma. Let $f colon A to B$ be injective, $C subseteq D subseteq A$ Then
    $$f[D] = f[D setminus C] mathbin{dot{cup}} f[C].$$



    (The proof is virtually the same as the one you've given.)



    Also note that injectivity is necessary:



    Lemma. If $f colon A to B$ is not injective, then there is some $C subseteq A$ such that
    $$f[A setminus C] cap f[C] neq emptyset.$$



    I'll leave the easy proof to you as an exercise. (Hint: You can choose $C$ to be a singleton.)






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:12










    • @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:18










    • I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:27










    • @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:30










    • If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
      – egreg
      Nov 17 at 10:41















    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted










    Other than the typo I've pointed out in a comment, your proof is fine.



    Note, however, that you don't need that $B subseteq A$. The following is true:



    Lemma. Let $f colon A to B$ be injective, $C subseteq D subseteq A$ Then
    $$f[D] = f[D setminus C] mathbin{dot{cup}} f[C].$$



    (The proof is virtually the same as the one you've given.)



    Also note that injectivity is necessary:



    Lemma. If $f colon A to B$ is not injective, then there is some $C subseteq A$ such that
    $$f[A setminus C] cap f[C] neq emptyset.$$



    I'll leave the easy proof to you as an exercise. (Hint: You can choose $C$ to be a singleton.)






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:12










    • @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:18










    • I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:27










    • @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:30










    • If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
      – egreg
      Nov 17 at 10:41













    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    2
    down vote



    accepted






    Other than the typo I've pointed out in a comment, your proof is fine.



    Note, however, that you don't need that $B subseteq A$. The following is true:



    Lemma. Let $f colon A to B$ be injective, $C subseteq D subseteq A$ Then
    $$f[D] = f[D setminus C] mathbin{dot{cup}} f[C].$$



    (The proof is virtually the same as the one you've given.)



    Also note that injectivity is necessary:



    Lemma. If $f colon A to B$ is not injective, then there is some $C subseteq A$ such that
    $$f[A setminus C] cap f[C] neq emptyset.$$



    I'll leave the easy proof to you as an exercise. (Hint: You can choose $C$ to be a singleton.)






    share|cite|improve this answer














    Other than the typo I've pointed out in a comment, your proof is fine.



    Note, however, that you don't need that $B subseteq A$. The following is true:



    Lemma. Let $f colon A to B$ be injective, $C subseteq D subseteq A$ Then
    $$f[D] = f[D setminus C] mathbin{dot{cup}} f[C].$$



    (The proof is virtually the same as the one you've given.)



    Also note that injectivity is necessary:



    Lemma. If $f colon A to B$ is not injective, then there is some $C subseteq A$ such that
    $$f[A setminus C] cap f[C] neq emptyset.$$



    I'll leave the easy proof to you as an exercise. (Hint: You can choose $C$ to be a singleton.)







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Nov 17 at 10:46

























    answered Nov 17 at 10:03









    Stefan Mesken

    14.4k32046




    14.4k32046








    • 1




      Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:12










    • @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:18










    • I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:27










    • @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:30










    • If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
      – egreg
      Nov 17 at 10:41














    • 1




      Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:12










    • @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:18










    • I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
      – oremata
      Nov 17 at 10:27










    • @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
      – Stefan Mesken
      Nov 17 at 10:30










    • If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
      – egreg
      Nov 17 at 10:41








    1




    1




    Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:12




    Thank you for the answer and exercise! That actually wasn't typo for me (I meant it). Would you explain why I have to write $bin B, ain A-B$ instead of just $a, bin A$?
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:12












    @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:18




    @oremata You want to show that $f[A setminus B] cap f[B] = emptyset$. Toward a contradiction you must assume there is some $a in A setminus B$ and some $b in B$ such that $f(a) = f(b)$. If $a in A cap B$, it could be that $a = b$ and then there is no contradiction.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:18












    I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:27




    I understand the point. But, before writing about the injection, I mentioned in the proof that there exist $ain A$ and $bin A-B$, so I think I don't have to write it again... Is it wrong? Sorry, I'm new to proof stuff.
    – oremata
    Nov 17 at 10:27












    @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:30




    @oremata The point is that you could have $a = b$ and then you don't get your contradiction. If you fix $a in B$ and $b in A setminus B$, you know that $a neq b$ (because $B$ and $A setminus B$ don't have a common element). If you then have $f(a) = f(b)$, this is a contradiction to injectivity.
    – Stefan Mesken
    Nov 17 at 10:30












    If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
    – egreg
    Nov 17 at 10:41




    If you want to use a binary operation symbol with an accent on it, it should be coded as mathbin{dot{cup}} so the spacing is right.
    – egreg
    Nov 17 at 10:41










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I assume that $+$ denotes disjoint union. Your idea is good, but you lose yourself in explanations.



    The proof that $f(A)=f(A-B)cup f(B)$ is easy and doesn't require injectivity.



    Now the proof the sets are disjoint. More generally,




    if $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint sets and $f(X)cap f(Y)neemptyset$, then $f$ is not injective.




    Indeed, if $zin f(X)cap f(Y)$, then $z=f(x)=f(y)$, with $xin X$ and $yin Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint, $xne y$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I assume that $+$ denotes disjoint union. Your idea is good, but you lose yourself in explanations.



      The proof that $f(A)=f(A-B)cup f(B)$ is easy and doesn't require injectivity.



      Now the proof the sets are disjoint. More generally,




      if $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint sets and $f(X)cap f(Y)neemptyset$, then $f$ is not injective.




      Indeed, if $zin f(X)cap f(Y)$, then $z=f(x)=f(y)$, with $xin X$ and $yin Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint, $xne y$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        I assume that $+$ denotes disjoint union. Your idea is good, but you lose yourself in explanations.



        The proof that $f(A)=f(A-B)cup f(B)$ is easy and doesn't require injectivity.



        Now the proof the sets are disjoint. More generally,




        if $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint sets and $f(X)cap f(Y)neemptyset$, then $f$ is not injective.




        Indeed, if $zin f(X)cap f(Y)$, then $z=f(x)=f(y)$, with $xin X$ and $yin Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint, $xne y$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        I assume that $+$ denotes disjoint union. Your idea is good, but you lose yourself in explanations.



        The proof that $f(A)=f(A-B)cup f(B)$ is easy and doesn't require injectivity.



        Now the proof the sets are disjoint. More generally,




        if $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint sets and $f(X)cap f(Y)neemptyset$, then $f$ is not injective.




        Indeed, if $zin f(X)cap f(Y)$, then $z=f(x)=f(y)$, with $xin X$ and $yin Y$. Since $X$ and $Y$ are disjoint, $xne y$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 17 at 10:51









        egreg

        173k1383198




        173k1383198






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002134%2fproof-of-fa-fa-bfb-when-f-is-a-injective-map%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Willebadessen

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

            Residenzschloss Arolsen