Re: Function

From: Kira Yamato <>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:04:07 -0500
Message-ID: <2008011511040750073-kirakun_at_earthlinknet>

On 2008-01-15 10:44:07 -0500, Sampo Syreeni <> said:

> [...]
> Really, the weird part about this thread, to me, is how much time is
> being spent on how various people construct relations, functions and
> the like. In today's math it's much more common to go with the
> axiomatic method and simply talk about the properties any such
> constructs possess. Under that sort of treatment, most of the fuzziness
> goes away because you can show that the various constructive versions
> are isomorphic to each other; from the viewpoint of behavior,
> properties and logic, they are all just models of the same basic
> mathematical intuition. Such a viewpoint saves you a whole lot of
> quibbling.

But any serious students of mathematics has gone through at least one exercise of rigorously defining what a function is.

You never want to be vague when it comes to math. Vagueness will lead to contradictions.


Received on Tue Jan 15 2008 - 17:04:07 CET

Original text of this message