1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Function notation question

  1. Jul 27, 2013 #1
    I have seen over and over statements like:
    [tex]
    \begin{aligned}
    &f(x)~\text{is a function of}\dots \\
    &\text{Let}~f(x)~\text{be a function that}\dots.
    \end{aligned}
    [/tex]
    This is probably a dumb question, but am I justified in feeling annoyed at these statements? The annoyance stems from my understanding that the "function" is [itex] f [/itex], not [itex] f(x) [/itex], i.e., in the definition,
    [tex]
    f : x \mapsto f(x),
    [/tex]
    so while [itex] f [/itex] is the literal rule that assigns a value to the point [itex] x [/itex], [itex] f(x) [/itex] is that actual value. Or am I mistaken?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2013 #2

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You are not mistaken. It is just an abuse of terminology.
     
  4. Jul 27, 2013 #3
    Thanks for your answer. But what do people mean generally? Are they referring to the rule, or the variable value of the output of the rule?
     
  5. Jul 27, 2013 #4

    WannabeNewton

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The general meaning is that ##f## is the function, not ##f(x)##; in ##f:X\rightarrow Y,x \mapsto f(x)##, where ##X,Y## are sets, ##f## is the function from ##X## into ##Y## and it sends the element ##x## of ##X## to the element ##f(x)## of ##Y##. People simply say things like "consider the function ##f(x)##" for shorthand.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Function notation question
  1. Function Notation (Replies: 5)

  2. Question on notation (Replies: 5)

  3. Notation question (Replies: 4)

Loading...