Re: what are keys and surrogates?
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8cdd4954-90f7-481a-966e-dfbb55a4cf12_at_1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>
On 19 jan, 05:47, Keith H Duggar <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Jan Hidders wrote:
> > Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > > David BL wrote:
> > > > Jan Hidders wrote:
> > > > > In my experience as somebody who works in a Comp. science and
> > > > > Mathematics department the mathematicians that prefer the (D,C,G)
> > > > > definition of a function, also prefer the definition of relation that
> > > > > makes the domains explicit, and so define a binary relation as a
> > > > > triple (D_1,D_2,G). In that case a function is actually again a
> > > > > special case of a relation. But this is all by no means
> > > > > uncontroversial. If you look at the entry for mathematical relation in
> > > > > Wikipedia you will see that there have been edit wars over this, and
> > > > > even one resulting in a ban.
>
> > > > LOL.
>
> > > > I agree that in a "single work" one should be consistent one way or
> > > > the other so that a function is indeed a relation.
>
> > > Finally you were able to admit "that a function is indeed
> > > a relation". Sadly you felt compelled to add the nonsense
> > > "single work" qualifier in a failed last-ditch attempt to
> > > save precise-boy face.
>
> > David is making a valid and correct point.
>
> No he wasn't. Perhaps you forgot too quickly that his original
> point (which he repeated in various ways) was:
>
> "it [is] more precise to say that the
> graph of a function is a relation"
>
> not that there are different definitions of "function".
>
> > There are many possible valid definitions of the notion of
> > function, even within mathematics, and it is not always the
> > case that functions are identified with their graphs.
>
> The only one to thus far claim that functions are associated
> with their graphs was David! Let's draw a simplified picture
> of the formalisms discussed and the various combinations one
> might choose
>
> F1 = function is {(x,y)}
> F2 = function is (D,C,G={(x,y)})
> R1 = binary relation is {(x,y)}
> R2 = binary relation is (D1,D2,G={(x,y)})
>
> possible combinations
>
> (F1 R1) (F1 R2)
> (F2 R1) (F2 R2)
>
> You yourself have pointed out under both (F1 R1) and (F2 R2)
> "a function is a relation". Furthermore, you also claim your
> experience indicates mathematicians choose either (F1 R1) or
> (F2 R2) not (F1 R2) nor (F2 R1) ie the one David holds high.
>
> Finally, who can know what David meant by "more precise" but
> I would choose (F2 R2) as more precise than his pet (F2 R1).
>
> Based on the above (mostly your own claims here simplified),
> would you not agree that "a function is a relation" is both
> more common and more precise than "the graph of a function
> is a relation"?
Before I answer that let me first agree that your simplified picture is correct. But as far as I understand him I don't think that David actually disagrees with that picture.
- Jan Hidders