Results 1 to 13 of 13

Math Help - is there a function that is a member of its domain?

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12

    is there a function that is a member of its domain?

    or is there a proof that such function doesn't exist?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,957
    Thanks
    1780
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by avonm View Post
    is there a function that is a member of its domain?
    or is there a proof that such function doesn't exist?
    That question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    It is a violation of types.
    Try to explain what you are trying to ask.
    Give an example of what you think you are asking.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12
    i think my question is clear since you should know what is a function, you should know what is the domain of a function, and you shoud know what is a member of a set.
    So, to be even more clear, i am asking if there is a function f such that f belongs to the domain of f (or if there is a proof that such f does not exist).
    It's unclear what you mean by 'violation of types'.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,957
    Thanks
    1780
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by avonm View Post
    i think my question is clear since you should know what is a function, you should know what is the domain of a function, and you shoud know what is a member of a set. So, to be even more clear, i am asking if there is a function f such that f belongs to the domain of f (or if there is a proof that such f does not exist).
    It's unclear what you mean by 'violation of types'.
    I think that you are the one that does not understand what a function is.
    Here is the definition.
    Suppose that each of A~\&~B is a set.
    The statement that f is a function from A to B means.
    1. f\subseteq (A\times B)
    2. if x\in A then \left( {\exists y \in B} \right)\left[ {(x,y) \in f} \right]
    3. \left[ {(x,y) \in f \wedge (x,z) \in f \to y = z} \right]

    Please explain your question using the correct definition of function.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12
    if you prefer i'll use your definition
    i'm asking to prove
    there are A, B sets and f function from A to B such that f belongs to A
    or to prove this is false
    (i.e. for each A, B sets and f function from A to B f does not belong to A)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    You are looking for \displaystyle f such that \displaystyle f \in A and \displaystyle f \subseteq (A \times B). I think you might be able to get away with this using a bunch of empty sets, but I'm not sure.

    Edit: To clarify, suppose \displaystyle A = \{\emptyset\}, B = \emptyset, f: A \to B. It seems then that (A \times B) = \emptyset and that \displaystyle f is unique and that using Plato's definition f = \emptyset giving \displaystyle f \in A and \displaystyle f \subseteq (A \times B) as desired.. but I am shaky on this.
    Last edited by undefined; July 12th 2010 at 12:53 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Super Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    From
    México
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    You are looking for \displaystyle f such that \displaystyle f \in A and \displaystyle f \subseteq (A \times B). I think you might be able to get away with this using a bunch of empty sets, but I'm not sure.

    Edit: To clarify, suppose \displaystyle A = \{\emptyset\}, B = \emptyset, f: A \to B. It seems then that (A \times B) = \emptyset and that \displaystyle f is unique and that using Plato's definition f = \emptyset giving \displaystyle f \in A and \displaystyle f \subseteq (A \times B) as desired.. but I am shaky on this.
    I think there cannot be a function with codomain \emptyset, since the very definition of function requires the existence of an element in the codomain (if the domain is not empty). On the other hand for every set B there exists exactly one function f_B:\emptyset \rightarrow B, in which case f_B (the empty function) satisfies the requirements. On any other case this makes no sense without identifying the domain with some subset of the product.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,957
    Thanks
    1780
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    Edit: To clarify, suppose \displaystyle A = \{\emptyset\}, B = \emptyset, f: A \to B. It seems then that (A \times B) = \emptyset and that \displaystyle f is unique and that using Plato's definition f = \emptyset giving \displaystyle f \in A and \displaystyle f \subseteq (A \times B)
    The is at least one difficulty with that example.
    Using the notation B^A to stand for all functions from A\to B.
    Here is a standard exercise from Halmos’ little book. (p33)
    Exercise: (i) Y^{\emptyset} has exactly one element, namely  \emptyset, whether Y is empty or not; and (ii) if X is not empty then  \emptyset^X is empty.

    Now look at your example again. Recall that \{\emptyset\} is no empty.

    Also look the requirement #2 in the definition. Consider the existential operator.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose27 View Post
    I think there cannot be a function with codomain \emptyset, since the very definition of function requires the existence of an element in the codomain (if the domain is not empty). On the other hand for every set B there exists exactly one function f_B:\emptyset \rightarrow B, in which case f_B (the empty function) satisfies the requirements. On any other case this makes no sense without identifying the domain with some subset of the product.
    You're right, I got that backwards.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    At the risk of embarrassing myself further, is it legal to construct the following infinite sets A and F?

    A = {a, {(a,b)}, {(a,b), ({(a,b)},b)}, ...}

    B = {b}

    F = {(a,b), ({(a,b)}, b), ({(a,b), ({(a,b)},b)}, b), ...}

    In case it's hard to follow, start with

    A_0 = {a}

    Look at the function from A_0 to B

    F_0 = {(a,b)}

    Now take

    A_1 = A_0 U {F_0} = {a, {(a,b)}}

    Iterate indefinitely..
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor undefined's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,340
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by undefined View Post
    At the risk of embarrassing myself further, is it legal to construct the following infinite sets A and F?

    A = {a, {(a,b)}, {(a,b), ({(a,b)},b)}, ...}

    B = {b}

    F = {(a,b), ({(a,b)}, b), ({(a,b), ({(a,b)},b)}, b), ...}

    In case it's hard to follow, start with

    A_0 = {a}

    Look at the function from A_0 to B

    F_0 = {(a,b)}

    Now take

    A_1 = A_0 U {F_0} = {a, {(a,b)}}

    Iterate indefinitely..
    Seems I've violated the axiom of regularity and created a non-well-founded set. Is it so? Because the A and F constructed above seem very similar to

    X_0 = {x}

    X_1 = {x, {x}}

    X_2 = {x, {x}, {x, {x}}}

    X = {x, {x}, {x, {x}}, ...}

    which would mean X is a member of itself, which is a contradiction according to the axiom of regularity. And it looks like this is very close to the one of the ways the naturals are defined, which would mean we are essentially taking X to be the limit of n as n approaches infinity, which does not exist because the sequence diverges.

    Edit: Sorry to have to revise what I just wrote; maybe I should not have posted to this thread.. It now seems to me that X in this post is akin to \displaystyle \mathbb{N} and the error isn't in claiming that it exists, but rather in claiming that it is a member of itself, even though X_0 is a member of X_1 which is a member of X_2 etc. In other words, the chain of membership does not imply that X is a member of X. Anyway for what it's worth I believe Plato is correct from the beginning, I was just trying to see if there were some "special cases" for which we can find such an f.
    Last edited by undefined; July 12th 2010 at 03:52 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by avonm View Post
    is there a function that is a member of its domain?
    You shouldn't be hassled by anyone claiming that the question makes no sense. The question makes perfect sense.

    With the axiom of regularity, we prove there is no function that is a member of its domain. Whether we can prove this without the axiom of regularity, I don't opine.

    Actually, we can generalize: With the axiom of regularity, there is no S such that S is a member of the domain of S. Proof:

    Def: dom(S) = {x | Ey <x y> in S}

    Toward a contradiction, suppose S in dom(S).

    So let <S y> in S.

    So (using the Kuratowski definition of '< >'), we have S in {S} in <S y> in S, which violates a theorem from regularity.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Joined
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12
    Thank you very much MoeBlee, it seems to me that yours is the best answer, the only one that makes sense actually and gives serious references. I've seen you were banned .. it seems that this forum is working in a strange way ..
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Domain of the function y=x^(1/3)
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 23rd 2011, 06:16 AM
  2. Domain of a Function
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 30th 2009, 11:51 PM
  3. what is the domain of this function
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 10th 2009, 04:56 PM
  4. Domain of function
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 6th 2006, 04:08 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum