Tim Gowers has a very nice piece on his blog about functions, multivalued functions, relations and the like, called “Why aren’t all functions well-defined?“.
Posts feed
Explore all this site
Tag Cloud
Archives
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Tweets @PeterSmith
- “@changingspaces_: http://t.co/S6hYoL4l the Hunt & Darton cafe where the cafe is the work of art” But will the macchiato be any good? Posted 2 days ago
- Pudsey (dancing dog) wins £500,000, & is all over the papers. Brilliant Laura van der Heijden wins £2000, zero press. Such is Britain 2012. Posted 3 days ago
- #bbcyoungmusician final was astonishing, the winner beyond belief. Where are the online reviews/comments in Grauniad, Indy, Telegraph??? Posted 3 days ago
The intuitionists have it easy, of course: they can just waffle about extensional operations. (One is reminded of the trivial but fallacious intuitionistic proof of (certain form of) choice…)
A standard illustration of the hazards of talking about well-definedness of functions is provided by the proof that recursive definitions (along some well-ordering, say) define unique functions. (At least I seem to recall this is a standard illustration.) Given a recursive definition we prove by induction, so one naturally surmises, that the function is well-defined. This is poppycock, as a moment's reflection reveals: we're trying to apply induction to show that an object we haven't proven to exist has a property that we haven't given any mathematical definition. And so it goes.