Why can't I see it the other way around as the rel...

# mathematics

[George Pandian]

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
Or
co domain -> domain

Then I can map it with directions as in Graph Theory style with a function definition above the directed relationship identified ?

[Ilya Muradyan]

Please use threads

[George Pandian]

Thanks for the feedback. Should have done it properly. Hopefully won't happen next.

[Ilya Muradyan]

Regarding your question, 1.3c is not a function because function can only have one value for a single argument

[Ilya Muradyan]

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

[George Pandian]

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.

[George Pandian]

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 ?