I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place but I believe the answer is geometric in nature somehow.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So as a young physics student it is banged into your head that vectors/tensors are genuine geometric and algebraic "objects" and the coordinates by which you label them are metaphysical, so to speak, and not at all fundamental. The same object has many different labels depending on the basis.

So this got me thinking about functions. Dirac seems to want us to imagine functions (say over just the real numbers) as an uncountable set of coordinates, analogous to vectors, one for each element of R. So just like we can think geometrically/algebraically about vectors, is there a way of thinking about functions without projecting them into any coordinate space?

I suppose the thrust of my point is this: if it is non-sensical to say "(1,2,3) is a vector" then ought it be equally cavalier to say "f(x)=x^3" is a function?"

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# How fundamental are functions, really?

Loading...

Similar Threads - fundamental functions really | Date |
---|---|

A Methods to interpolate surfaces from gradient field? | Feb 17, 2017 |

Projection stereographic and second fundamental form | May 9, 2015 |

Fundamental theorem of calculus for surface integrals? | Dec 27, 2013 |

First Fundamental Form from tangent vectors | Jul 18, 2013 |

Showing the Fundamental Group of S^1 is isomorphic to the integers | Dec 27, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**