Is It Correct to Use f and f(x) Interchangeably in Mathematics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cra18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interchangeability of the terms "f" and "f(x)" in mathematical contexts. Participants explore the implications of this terminology in relation to the definition of functions and the distinction between the function itself and its output value.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses annoyance at the common usage of "f(x)" to refer to a function, arguing that "f" is the actual function while "f(x)" represents the output value for a given input.
  • Another participant agrees, stating that referring to "f(x)" as the function is an abuse of terminology.
  • A subsequent participant seeks clarification on the general understanding of these terms, questioning whether people typically refer to the function or its output when using "f(x)."
  • In response, a participant explains that "f" is indeed the function, while "f(x)" denotes the output, noting that shorthand expressions like "consider the function f(x)" are commonly used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that "f" represents the function and "f(x)" represents the output value. However, there is a debate regarding the appropriateness of using "f(x)" to refer to the function itself, indicating a lack of consensus on the terminology.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential confusion arising from the use of shorthand in mathematical language, as well as the importance of precise definitions in understanding functions.

cra18
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I have seen over and over statements like:
[tex] \begin{aligned}<br /> &f(x)~\text{is a function of}\dots \\<br /> &\text{Let}~f(x)~\text{be a function that}\dots.<br /> \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?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You are not mistaken. It is just an abuse of terminology.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
12K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K