--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, nate_1729 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> Indeed, surjectivity is an excellent example of an important concept
> that is highly accessible to those without specialized training --
> look at various pigeon-hole arguments for examples of elementary and
> elegant proofs that use only basic (and intuitive) set theory.
The problem with "surjectivity" is that the concept is so simple that
any question written about it is almost of necessity stupid, will
likely mislead one listening to it, and then lead to a sudden "they
wanted THAT?" feeling at some point more or less late in the question.
> It's laughable to suggest that surjectivity is too specialized, when
> Zorn's lemma and Russell's paradox, just to name two, are asked
> frequently -- both of those are (when studied rigorously)
> exponentially less accessible to the non-specialist.
But they are nontrivial, and the ideas are well known, if the details
are not. They make for better questions.