From my prior studies that a relation between two sets $R\subseteq A\times B$ is deemed a function if and only if it satisfies the following properties.
Definition-1
$\forall a \in A \, \exists b\in B \, ((a,b)\in R)$
$\forall a \in A \, \forall b_1,b_2 \in B \, ((a,b_1)\in R\land(a,b_2)\in R\implies b_1=b_2)$
But while attempting the following problem $T$ is injective if and only if $ST=I_V$ for some $S\in\mathcal{L}(W,V)$. I seemed to have proved incorrectly that the function in this problem is well defined, so much so that i know feel that i have completing misunderstood the concept.
For example the fellow that corrected me seemed to be saying that to prove that a function is well defined should prove the following.
Definition-2
$\forall a,a'\in A(a=a'\implies f(a) = f(a)')$.
I know that the second clause in the definition one shows that a function is well defined, so how does the second clause in the definition two communicate the same idea?
I hate to grovel but i really need help with this seeing as how this is such a fundamental concept and i didnt even realize that had it wrong this whole time!
What you call Definition-2 is not a definition. Obviously, it assumes that the expression $f(a)$ as already been defined.
When we try to define a function $f\colon A\longrightarrow B$, there are two things that may go wrong:
Checking that a function is well-defined means chacking that these problems don't occur.