I read the following sentence (from these notes on logic):
If $\mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal B$, then the inclusion $ a \to a : A \to B$ is an embedding $\mathcal A \to \mathcal B$
where $\mathcal{A} = (A, (R^{\mathcal A})_{R \in L^r}, (F^{\mathcal A})_{F \in L^f} )$, $\mathcal{B} = (B, (R^{\mathcal B})_{R \in L^r}, (F^{\mathcal B})_{F \in L^f} )$ are different L-structures.
I was trying to understand what that specific sentence meant. The things that confuse me the most are:
- what inclusion means in this context.
- what the notation $ a \to a : A \to B$ means.
usually $ x \to f(x) $ means x is mapped to f(x) e.g. $x \to e^x$. Then word inclusion from googling seems to just mean subset. Thus I'm confused, is what we are considering mapping the whole set A to B or elements from A to elements of B? What is an embedding in this context? I know embeddings in general are injective strong homomorphisms, but right now its unclear what the homomorphism we are talking about and what sets we are talking about and what relations/functions we are talking about. What are we mapping from what to what and where does this fit with the given sentence?
This is actually very trivial. Here 'inclusion' does indeed mean subset: The containment $\mathcal A \subseteq \mathcal B$ induces a subset relationship $A \subseteq B$ (you should verify this yourself). We are taking that subset relationship and reinterpreting it as the identity mapping from $A$ to $B$. The expression $a \to a : A \to B$ means we are expressing the definition of this identity mapping, by saying that we are mapping each object $a$ [left-side], viewed as an element of $A$, onto the self-same object $a$[right-side], viewed as an element of $B$. The opening sentence is then saying that this set-to-set mapping induces a corresponding structure-to-structure embedding.