Does this formalism adequately describe functions of one variable?












2












$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic




functions elementary-set-theory logic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago







Dan Christensen

















asked 6 hours ago









Dan ChristensenDan Christensen

8,63821835




8,63821835












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
6 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 6 hours ago









    APC89APC89

    2,443420




    2,443420












    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      5 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago














    $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago











    3












    $begingroup$

    For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



    Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



    $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



    If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



    1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



      Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



      $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



      If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



      1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



        Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



        $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



        If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



        1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



        Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



        $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



        If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



        1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins

        17k11437




        17k11437






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
            Read more

            Berlina muro

            Image
            La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
            Read more

            Berlina aerponto

            Image
            Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
            Read more