Why can't I see it the other way around as the relationship is from co domain to domain and use the same above understanding and say Oh I see a function ?Basically relationship identified across sers
be it domian -> co domain
co domain -> domainThen I can map it with directions as in Graph Theory style with a function definition above the directed relationship identified ?
Thanks for the feedback. Should have done it properly. Hopefully won't happen next.
8 months ago
Regarding your question, 1.3c is not a function because function can only have one value for a single argument
In other words, if there would be a function that illustrates 1.3c, it could return different values for the same argument. And it's not a function in math sense. But such functions exist in the programming world:
fun f(x: Int) = x * rand()
They are called impure
8 months ago
Thanks for the information Ilya.
I would slightly like to disagree with differentiation between maths and computers in this above situation.Functions here are derived from the logical deduction i.e. relationship based on real world observation between elements in set.Say at an atomic to an extent quantum base level a relationship can exist between elements in different set using different functions.Don't want to go into a detailed discussion but from which the quantum relationship derived would form a graphical function different when a d(x)/d(t) is applied and rand() which is a function of it's own can be made to a order.
So it is a necessary that relationship which is formed from a function be a directed path from domain A to co domain B ? Else it could be invalid in Set Theory ?