Can a function have two parameters and still retain the property of uniqueness?

kenewbie
Messages
238
Reaction score
0
Function "uniqueness"..

Ok, pardon the complete lack of terminology here.

I can define a function with one parameter such that no two different inputs give the same output. Example:

f(x) = x + 1

No value of x gives the same result as another value of x.

I believe that it is impossible to define a function which accepts two parameters, yet retains this property of "uniqueness". Am I correct? Is there a name for what I am trying to describe?

I'm pretty sure I am correct, but I have no idea how to prove it.

Lets say I have a function

f(a,b) = k

where k is some sort of calculation.

if k is arithmetic, i can break the uniqueness by doing the calculation outside f, and then feeding 0 as one of the parameters

f(a,b) = k = f(k,0)

if k is geometric I can do the same as above, only pass 1 instead of 0. Outside of these two classes of functions (and the trivial one where a or b is omitted in the calculation of the function) I can't seem to find a good way of proving myself.

Proving this for more and more "classes of calculations" seem futile, I'm not even sure everything can be categorized as neatly as arithmetic and geometric functions can. There might be a better way of going about this?

All feedback is welcome.

k
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org


There is no "nice" way to define a two parameter function with a unique value. However, there are messy looking ways. Example consider the decimal expansions of x and y:
0.x1x2x3x4x5x6x7... and 0.y1y2y3y4y5y6y7...
Then define z=f(x,y) by:
0.x1y1x2y2x3y4x4y4...
Note that this works from the unit square to the unit interval.
To do the whole real line, to get x and y use an arctan transformation (properly normalized) and the reverse process (tan) to go from z to the whole real line.

Normalization involves shifting the interval and dividing or multiplying by pi.
 


What you're looking for is called a function that is one to one. It is also called injection/injective.

A typical example is: f(x,y) = a^x * b^y where a, b are primes that don't equal each other.

Ex: let f(x,y) = 2^x * 3 ^ y

It should be easy to see that f(3,4) = 2^3 * 3^4 is a unique number or the fundumental theorem of mathematics (sometimes called of arithmetic) would be contradicted.
 


mistermath said:
What you're looking for is called a function that is one to one. It is also called injection/injective.

A typical example is: f(x,y) = a^x * b^y where a, b are primes that don't equal each other.

Ex: let f(x,y) = 2^x * 3 ^ y

It should be easy to see that f(3,4) = 2^3 * 3^4 is a unique number or the fundumental theorem of mathematics (sometimes called of arithmetic) would be contradicted.
This is good as long as x and y are integers. However, for real x and y, you would lose uniqueness.
 


Thanks a lot to both of you, I was clearly wrong in assuming that it cannot be done.

k
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top