Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose I have a function f : A → B between two sets A and B. (The same question applies to group homomorphisms, continuous maps between topological spaces, etc. But for simpicity let's restrict ourselves to the case of arbitrary maps between sets.)

If I have subset A' ⊆ A of the domain A, then I can restrict of f to A'. There is the function f|A' : A' → B which is given by f|A'(a) = f(a) for all a ∈ A'.

Suppose now that I have subset B' ⊆ B of the codomain B that contains the image of the map f. Similarly I can restrict of f to B' meaning that there is a function g : A → B' which is given by g(a) = f(a) for all a ∈ A.

In general, it might be useful to consider such functions g and have a name for them, for example if I have a function B' → C that I want to apply afterwards. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a name or symbol for this function g in literature.

Is there a notation for the restriction g of f to a subset of the codomain similar to the notation f|A' for a restriction to a subset of the domain?

share|improve this question
7  
@Willie Wong: the target of your function is still $B$. @noname: Let $\iota: B'\to B$ be the inclusion; then the function you are referring to is sometimes called $\iota^*f$, which as the notation suggests is a special case of the pullback. –  Daniel Litt Jun 29 '10 at 13:21
10  
I'd be tempted to invent the notation ${}_{B'}|f$ for this. –  Harald Hanche-Olsen Jun 29 '10 at 13:58
19  
Is the inclusion map {0}->{0,1} the same as the identity map {0}->{0}? According to one well-established "usual convention", they are, since a function is a set of ordered pairs. According to another, they are not. You need the latter convention in order to meaningfully ask questions like "is this function surjective?" –  Tom Goodwillie Jun 29 '10 at 14:12
15  
@Harald: Alternatively, for ease of typesetting: $f|^{B'}$. –  Ryan Reich Jun 29 '10 at 15:49
7  
Yes, but the original poster is obviously in a situation where it matters. –  darij grinberg Jun 29 '10 at 18:00
show 12 more comments

6 Answers

I would call it simply a pullback (along $B'$). Thus, you may denote it by $f \times_B B'$.

If we pullback a map $f : A \to B$ along a subset $B' \subseteq B$, we get the map $f^{-1}(B') \to B', x \mapsto f(x)$. If the image of $f$ happens to be a subset of $B'$, then $f^{-1}(B')=A$.

share|improve this answer
    
I agree. This is the most sensible thing to do. –  Sándor Kovács May 24 '11 at 4:14
    
I agree with this (and Daniel Litt's comment). –  S. Carnahan May 24 '11 at 4:36
add comment

Concerning the name for the notion in question, but not the notation, Exposé 2 by A. Andreotti in the Séminaire A. Grothendieck 1957, available at www.numdam.org, suggests the following:

Consider a morphism $f:A\rightarrow B$ in some category, subobjects $i:U\rightarrow A$ and $j:V\rightarrow B$ of $A$ and $B$, respectively, and quotient objects $p:A\rightarrow P$ and $q:B\rightarrow Q$ of $A$ and $B$, respectively.

Then, $f\circ i$ is the restriction of $f$ to $U$. Dually, $q\circ f$ is the corestriction of $f$ to $Q$. (In particular, with the usual usage of the prefix "co", corestriction is not suitable for the notion in question.)

Moreover, if there is a morphism $g:P\rightarrow B$ with $g\circ p=f$, then $g$ is the astriction of $f$ to $P$. Dually, if there is a morphism $h:A\rightarrow V$ with $j\circ h=f$, then $v$ is the coastriction of $f$ to $V$. (Of course one can argue whether one should swap the terms astriction and coastriction (as suggested by Gerald Edgar).)

share|improve this answer
add comment

If I wanted a name, I might use "corestriction."

share|improve this answer
add comment

The terminology I have seen for this is "astriction".

share|improve this answer
6  
Well, yet another example that not all existing terminology should be perpetuated! :) –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez May 24 '11 at 4:03
add comment

It's called a range restriction. There's no established notation, but you might as well use the Z notation which is f  ▷ B'. (f \rhd B' in LaTeX plus amsfonts)

share|improve this answer
add comment

This would fit as a response to Harald Hanche-Olsen's remark, but I have not enough points for this.

Anyway, Mizar mathematial library chose exactly this notation; actually, it is introduced in the article on basic relations RELAT_1.MIZ, Def. 12, so it fits any relation and any set.

In a Mizar article you have just ASCII, so no subscripts, but you can always avoid ambiguities like f|X versus X|f by typing the two objects appearing in the notation as Relation and set respectively. I find interesting that what is expressible on paper by varying font size is emulated by typing in a proof checker.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.