Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

Embed
What would you like to do?
<lkuper> is it equivalent to say that a function is invertible and that it's a bijection?
<shachaf> Yes.
<lkuper> ok :)
<shachaf> But you have to be careful if you have "functions" between more complicated structures.
<shachaf> In which case there might be more requirements on the inverse. But not with plain old functions.
<lkuper> ah. by ""functions" between more complicated structures", do you mean, like, some other kind of morphism?
<lkuper> (I'm dealing with plain old functions here, but curious)
<shachaf> Right.
<shachaf> E.g. you might care that the inverse of a continuous function is continuous, or something.
<lkuper> I see. so, maybe another way to say this is that, when dealing with sets, it turns out bijectivity and invertibility coincide, but invertibility is a more general concept and applies to fancier kinds of objects too
<lkuper> thanks for the insight :)
<shachaf> It kind of depends on how you define words, really.
<lkuper> haha, yeah
<shachaf> Probably you'd say "isomorphism" if you wanted to be really clear that you're talking about morphisms in some other category.
<shachaf> And you'd say "bijection" if you wanted to be clear that you just mean something between sets.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.