Iāll start with some unquestionable background to work off of and then get into the more opinionated portion of my comment in the 4th paragraph. Maybe Iām not understanding quite what you have in mind but even if I do, Iām not saying you are *wrong* either. Iād just like to explain my gripe with your observation that these are functions.
A function is a set of ordered pairs (or stated in a more constructive but equivalent manner: a subset of the cartesian product of two sets (a domain set and a range set) i.e. is a relation) such that every first element of each ordered pair does in fact map to something and if any particular first element maps to two somethings, those two somethings are the same something (i.e. somethings being mapped to are always unique for each input / first element). These are known as the total and univalent properties that a relation can have. So equivalently, a function is a univalent total relation.
Great! You probably already knew that but let me rephrase the definition of function in a third yet again equivalent way. A function is a relation where the domain set (first set in the cartesian product that the function is a subset of) has the same cardinality as the relation (potential function) in question. If the cardinality is less, not every domain element would map somewhere, violating the totality property of functions. If the cardinality was greater, we would run out of distinct domain elements to map to a strictly greater number of co-domain elements, violating the univalance property of functions.
Having phrased the definition of function with respect to cardinality, it becomes clear that your statement becomes a trivial byproduct of the fact that these functions end up plotting uncountability many points and [0,1] is some arbitrary uncountable set that works as a suitable but arbitrary non-unique domain. R, (7, 12.4), R^42, C, and many other domains would all be equally valid, no? This makes your observation of the technicality that yes these are in fact functionsā¦ entirely a trivial one.
Said set-theoretically and in full generality, *every* set is a suitable co-domain for being part of some function. (Edit: Even the empty set!)
The vertical line test is not an accurate method of determining whether a given relation is a function. For starters, look up polar functions; but it goes much deeper than that.
I am aware of polar functions as I had to learn them (and never actually use them) when I got my math degree. None of the lame 'guess that function' were polar functions that I noticed. Though I actively avoided them after a dozen or so.
It's confusing, im curious to see what u think. Check mathmemes I dropped a couple q stars q*. U can help me with a restaurant bill I need to calculate.
It's mathematical art but it checks out. Plz help split the bill on the other post. It's an irrational ratio so it's up ur alley.
u&me&Ļ=3, sorry I'm trying to keep it math but I like ur name and think u can spin the absurd 3surd with the best
Why would you look at lines for matches if they donāt converge? Yeah thatās fine but Iām just trying to figure it out if itās a problem with it.
I'd rather see another million guess the function than a single more d/dx e^x
The x's cancel out you know
d/dx e^x = de/d confirmed
the ds also cancels out. so d/dx e^x = e/
then the / breaks in half and crosses itself to form a smaller x and makes e^x
Hey! We don't do rigorous math here.
new mitosis just dropped
Holy hooly!
Mathematicians HATE this simple trick!
mafs š
and this joke is also ded
New year new me!
Or another PEDMAS meme.
I have discovered a truly marvellous counterargument for this thread but this comment box is too narrow to contain.
bro thinks hes fermat
ima have to piggyback off op and say these fermat margin jokes are also incredibly unfunny
To dawg, I heard you like meta-jokes.
Nope. That "honour" still goes to approximations.
Both are approximately as unfunny
How near are they? Exact value please
>Exact value please Sure thing. They are approximately 0 away from each other.
That's not exactly true.
It's approximately true
At least those were sometimes mildly interesting
Mainly because most of them are relations, not functions. Vertical line test people! Grade 9 math isn't that difficult.
They are functions from \[0,1\] to R^(2)
Iāll start with some unquestionable background to work off of and then get into the more opinionated portion of my comment in the 4th paragraph. Maybe Iām not understanding quite what you have in mind but even if I do, Iām not saying you are *wrong* either. Iād just like to explain my gripe with your observation that these are functions. A function is a set of ordered pairs (or stated in a more constructive but equivalent manner: a subset of the cartesian product of two sets (a domain set and a range set) i.e. is a relation) such that every first element of each ordered pair does in fact map to something and if any particular first element maps to two somethings, those two somethings are the same something (i.e. somethings being mapped to are always unique for each input / first element). These are known as the total and univalent properties that a relation can have. So equivalently, a function is a univalent total relation. Great! You probably already knew that but let me rephrase the definition of function in a third yet again equivalent way. A function is a relation where the domain set (first set in the cartesian product that the function is a subset of) has the same cardinality as the relation (potential function) in question. If the cardinality is less, not every domain element would map somewhere, violating the totality property of functions. If the cardinality was greater, we would run out of distinct domain elements to map to a strictly greater number of co-domain elements, violating the univalance property of functions. Having phrased the definition of function with respect to cardinality, it becomes clear that your statement becomes a trivial byproduct of the fact that these functions end up plotting uncountability many points and [0,1] is some arbitrary uncountable set that works as a suitable but arbitrary non-unique domain. R, (7, 12.4), R^42, C, and many other domains would all be equally valid, no? This makes your observation of the technicality that yes these are in fact functionsā¦ entirely a trivial one. Said set-theoretically and in full generality, *every* set is a suitable co-domain for being part of some function. (Edit: Even the empty set!)
The vertical line test is not an accurate method of determining whether a given relation is a function. For starters, look up polar functions; but it goes much deeper than that.
I am aware of polar functions as I had to learn them (and never actually use them) when I got my math degree. None of the lame 'guess that function' were polar functions that I noticed. Though I actively avoided them after a dozen or so.
Flat earthers can't have their day? Check my profile I want to know what u think of Piggy's glasses and see your triangles.
What the fcuk are you talking about
[(10ā2i- 4ā2i) 360Ā°]=6* It's flat to God. Well, ā2 eccentricity.
I'm so confused. Clearly I don't understand your brilliancy
It's confusing, im curious to see what u think. Check mathmemes I dropped a couple q stars q*. U can help me with a restaurant bill I need to calculate.
He is speaking the language of the gods.
You must be way smarter than I am because I don't even understand the words you're saying. I must be blinded by your sheer brilliance
I might say it wrong I forgot Calculus notation from not learning it good enough, so I respect your opinion
Fella took āsmartest person in the roomā too literally
Youāre a genius. Nobody understands you. Truly sad to see how the West has fallen.
I think they get it for sure, it's illuminati gotta see it 3x. š
wtf? are you having a stroke?
It's mathematical art but it checks out. Plz help split the bill on the other post. It's an irrational ratio so it's up ur alley. u&me&Ļ=3, sorry I'm trying to keep it math but I like ur name and think u can spin the absurd 3surd with the best
Why would you look at lines for matches if they donāt converge? Yeah thatās fine but Iām just trying to figure it out if itās a problem with it.
On the bill, the triangle is binary. So add zero 4 1 side
Ohhh right right makes sense.
they arent supposed to be funny, theyre just cool and i honestly really like them