Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Confused about set-theoretic definition of a function

  1. Sep 15, 2011 #1
    I have read that a function f: A -> B can be defined as an ordered triple of sets (A,B,X), where X is the set of all ordered pairs [itex] X = \{(a,f(a)) \in A \times B\}. [/itex] But ordered tuples are really functions from [itex]\{1, ..., n\}[/itex] to (whatever set under consideration), right? So isn't this a circular definition? Or is there a more basic definition of functions that does not involve tuples? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 15, 2011 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    No, this is not true. The ordered tuple (a,b) is defined as {{a},{a,b}}. It's not defined as a function.
     
  4. Sep 15, 2011 #3
    But aren't tuples other than the ordered pair defined as functions, so that the definition of functions as triples would still be circular?
     
  5. Sep 15, 2011 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    No, triples can be defined as

    [tex](a,b,c)=((a,b),c)[/tex]

    And the definition of a function only uses ordered pairs and triples. So there is nothing circular.
     
  6. Sep 15, 2011 #5
    Oh I think I get it now. Thanks micromass!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Confused about set-theoretic definition of a function
Loading...