Igor wrote:

> So restating it - if function \\(f\\) has a left inverse \\(g\\) and a right inverse \\(h\\), then these inverses are equal (isomorphic), and \\(f\\), in turn, has the unique inverse.

Please don't put "isomorphic" in parentheses like that when you really mean "equal" - it turned a perfectly correct sentence into a very confusing one. It's as if someone said

> 2 plus 2 equals 4 (approximately).

It makes me want to say _"you were doing so well... why did you hedge your bets at the last minute?"_

Equality is a wonderful thing. When two things are equal, we should proudly announce it.

> So restating it - if function \\(f\\) has a left inverse \\(g\\) and a right inverse \\(h\\), then these inverses are equal (isomorphic), and \\(f\\), in turn, has the unique inverse.

Please don't put "isomorphic" in parentheses like that when you really mean "equal" - it turned a perfectly correct sentence into a very confusing one. It's as if someone said

> 2 plus 2 equals 4 (approximately).

It makes me want to say _"you were doing so well... why did you hedge your bets at the last minute?"_

Equality is a wonderful thing. When two things are equal, we should proudly announce it.