The union of graph G(f) with this other set ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter operationsres
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph Set Union
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the definitions of the graph of a map in real analysis, specifically focusing on the notation and implications of G(f) and G_{fy}. The first definition establishes G(f) as the set of ordered pairs derived from a function f: A → B. The second definition clarifies that G_{fy} represents the intersection of G(f) with the set of pairs where the second element is a specific y in B. The confusion arose from the misconception that G_{fy} equates to G(f), which is incorrect as G_{fy} is dependent on the specific y and the image of f.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and functions
  • Familiarity with the concept of graphs in mathematics
  • Knowledge of bijections and their properties
  • Basic comprehension of real analysis terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of bijections in real analysis
  • Learn about the implications of function images and codomains
  • Explore advanced topics in set theory related to intersections
  • Review examples of graphs of functions in mathematical literature
USEFUL FOR

Students of real analysis, mathematicians interested in set theory, and educators teaching the concepts of functions and their graphs.

operationsres
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
A first year real analysis textbook presents the following two definitions (where the second builds off the first.

(1) Definition (Graph of a map)

A and B are sets and f : A \rightarrow B is some map. Then we define the graph of f by G(f) := \{(x,f(x)) \in A \times B : x \in A\}.(2) Other definition

A and B are sets and f : A \rightarrow B is some map. Further, define for every y \in B the corresponding intersection G_{fy} by G_{fy} := G(f) \cap \{(x,y) : x \in A\}.

(This then proceeds into a theorem about bijections).

1. The problem I'm having
I completely understand (1) and all notation employed in both (1) and (2). However, I don't understand what (2) is trying to communicate ... It seems to me that G_{fy} = G(f) based on my interpretation of (2), making G_{fy} superfluous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry... I finally figured it out after I posted. f(x) \in image(f), y \in B and image(f) is not necessarily equal to B.

Feel free to delete.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K