In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Paul <email@example.com> writes >You are absolutely correct about the purpose of the theorem. David and >I are of the opinion that the non-vacuity of the definition is >sufficiently obvious to the intended readership, as not to be worth >stating.
Well, I wouldn't object to him stating it, but to spending several lines on the proof while skipping much less obvious steps in the proof of the main theorem. Just "the map f defined by ... is an obvious, indeed 'canonical', example of an L-canonical map on any B contained in A". -- David Hartley