Does this formalism adequately describe functions of one variable?
$begingroup$
Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.
Can this statement be effectively formalized by
$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$
What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.
functions elementary-set-theory logic
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.
Can this statement be effectively formalized by
$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$
What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.
functions elementary-set-theory logic
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.
Can this statement be effectively formalized by
$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$
What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.
functions elementary-set-theory logic
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
$endgroup$
Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.
Can this statement be effectively formalized by
$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$
What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.
functions elementary-set-theory logic
functions elementary-set-theory logic
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
edited 4 hours ago
Dan Christensen
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
asked 5 hours ago
Dan ChristensenDan Christensen
8,63821835
8,63821835
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.
Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.
$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.
If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)
1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
$endgroup$
Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
answered 5 hours ago
APC89APC89
2,443420
2,443420
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.
Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.
$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.
If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)
1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.
Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.
$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.
If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)
1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.
Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.
$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.
If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)
1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
$endgroup$
For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.
Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.
$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.
If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)
1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
answered 4 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17k11437
17k11437
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago