What are the domain and range of this function?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of a function that maps well-ordered sets to their least elements, exploring the implications for its domain and range. Participants examine the nature of sets and classes in set theory, and the challenges in defining functions between classes.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines a function f that maps well-ordered sets to their least elements, questioning the nature of its domain and range.
  • Another participant suggests that the power set of the natural numbers could be part of the domain, but expresses uncertainty about other possible sets.
  • A different participant claims the domain is a class of well-ordered sets, asserting that the range is the universe, which is also a class.
  • Questions arise about the distinction between classes and sets, with one participant seeking clarification on the capabilities of functions defined between classes.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the definition of a function, emphasizing that a function's domain should be a set, leading to a discussion on the rigor needed to define functions between classes.
  • Another participant notes that while every set is a class, not all classes are sets, and discusses the implications of this in set theory.
  • One participant references their text, which defines a function based on ordered pairs, challenging the assertion that functions must have a set as their domain.
  • Further discussion highlights the need for careful definitions of ordered pairs and other constructions when dealing with classes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the function's domain and range, the distinction between sets and classes, and the definition of functions in this context. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the definitions of functions and the implications of using classes versus sets, but do not resolve these issues.

StatusX
Homework Helper
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
2
Say I define a function f by sending a well ordered set X to the least element in X. For example, if N is the natural numbers with the usual ordering, then f(N)=1. This function seems to be well defined. I guess its domain is the set of well ordered sets, but this sounds strange. Whats even stranger is the range. What could this possibly be? The union of all well ordered sets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the very least you have the power set of the natural numbers in the domain, but I don't really know enough to say if there are other sets in that union or not.
 
It's domain is the class {(X,<) | X is a set and < is a well-order on X}. This is a class, not a set. The range is the universe (everything), which is also a class, not a set.
 
So what exactly is the difference between classes and sets? Apparently you can define functions between classes as with sets. Is there anything you can't do with them?
 
How can you define a function between classes? The definition of a function is that its domain is a set. So what you've defined is not an honest to goodness function.

It takes some care, I imagine, to actually rigorously define a generalization of function to the case of classes.

Well, you might - I care about categories so we tend to sidestep the issue.
 
Every set is a class, but not vice versa. In set theory, sets exists always but classes, in general, do not. For example, the class of sets that aren't members of themselves does not exist as a set, for it would lead to contradictions. In set theory functions are, in general, classes of ordered pairs (you're probably familiar with this). "Reasonable" functions are not only classes of ordered pairs, but sets of ordered pairs. The function you're describing is merely a class of ordered pairs. If X denotes a class, you can do most things with X that you could do with a set. You can make true statements like [itex]x \in X[/itex] for some set x, you can talk about the union of X (that is, the union of the sets in X), the intersection of X (that is, the intersection of the sets in X), subclasses of X, the powerset of X, etc. but there's no guarantee that any of these classes you get are sets. The only thing you can't do is say [itex](\exists y)(y = X)[/itex].
 
matt grime said:
How can you define a function between classes? The definition of a function is that its domain is a set.
That's not what it says in my text. My text simply says that f is a function iff everything in f is an ordered pair, and if (x,y) and (x,z) are ordered pairs in f, then y=z.
 
And this requires you to define ordered pairs of classes. My point was that I would imagine there is some care required to do properly all of these things that the OP would normally define as set constructions: ordered pairs, element comparison and so on.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K