What's the difference between “relation”, “mapping”, and “function”?
$begingroup$
I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?
functions terminology definition
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?
functions terminology definition
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?
functions terminology definition
New contributor
$endgroup$
I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?
functions terminology definition
functions terminology definition
New contributor
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
Old Pro
294214
294214
New contributor
asked 11 hours ago
user634631user634631
534
534
New contributor
New contributor
2
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Good question. I can give you a simple example.
You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.
So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola
$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$
This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x) - a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:
On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:
$$x^2+y^2=4$$
Its graph is given by:
Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.
Higher Dimensions
However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:
$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$
Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:
$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$
In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:
$$ z = g(x, y) $$
and
$$ z = 0 $$
Which I've shown below:
Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.
Key takeaway (tl;dr)
Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$
a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.
In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.
The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.
The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.
There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.
I Hope it Helps...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073075%2fwhats-the-difference-between-relation-mapping-and-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Good question. I can give you a simple example.
You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.
So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola
$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$
This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x) - a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:
On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:
$$x^2+y^2=4$$
Its graph is given by:
Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.
Higher Dimensions
However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:
$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$
Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:
$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$
In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:
$$ z = g(x, y) $$
and
$$ z = 0 $$
Which I've shown below:
Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.
Key takeaway (tl;dr)
Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. I can give you a simple example.
You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.
So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola
$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$
This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x) - a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:
On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:
$$x^2+y^2=4$$
Its graph is given by:
Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.
Higher Dimensions
However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:
$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$
Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:
$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$
In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:
$$ z = g(x, y) $$
and
$$ z = 0 $$
Which I've shown below:
Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.
Key takeaway (tl;dr)
Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Good question. I can give you a simple example.
You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.
So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola
$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$
This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x) - a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:
On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:
$$x^2+y^2=4$$
Its graph is given by:
Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.
Higher Dimensions
However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:
$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$
Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:
$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$
In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:
$$ z = g(x, y) $$
and
$$ z = 0 $$
Which I've shown below:
Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.
Key takeaway (tl;dr)
Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.
$endgroup$
Good question. I can give you a simple example.
You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.
So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola
$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$
This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x) - a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:
On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:
$$x^2+y^2=4$$
Its graph is given by:
Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.
Higher Dimensions
However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:
$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$
Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:
$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$
In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:
$$ z = g(x, y) $$
and
$$ z = 0 $$
Which I've shown below:
Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.
Key takeaway (tl;dr)
Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
user2662833user2662833
1,052815
1,052815
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
$endgroup$
– Caleth
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
The circle is hiding in plane sight.
$endgroup$
– Minix
8 hours ago
15
15
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$
a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.
In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.
The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.
The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$
a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.
In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.
The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.
The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$
a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.
In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.
The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.
The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.
$endgroup$
Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$
a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.
In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.
The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.
The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
BigbearZzzBigbearZzz
8,07321651
8,07321651
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
$endgroup$
– mathmandan
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– BigbearZzz
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).
$endgroup$
There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).
answered 11 hours ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,9701411
3,9701411
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.
There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.
I Hope it Helps...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.
There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.
I Hope it Helps...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.
There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.
I Hope it Helps...
$endgroup$
Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.
There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.
I Hope it Helps...
answered 10 hours ago
Devendra Singh RanaDevendra Singh Rana
757416
757416
add a comment |
add a comment |
user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073075%2fwhats-the-difference-between-relation-mapping-and-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
25 mins ago