What's the difference between “relation”, “mapping”, and “function”?












11












$begingroup$


I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S.
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    9 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago
















11












$begingroup$


I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S.
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    9 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago














11












11








11


3



$begingroup$


I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I think that a mapping and function are the same; there's only a difference between a mapping and relation. But I'm confused. What's the difference between a relation and a mapping and a function?







functions terminology definition






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









Old Pro

294214




294214






New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 20 hours ago









user634631user634631

584




584




New contributor




user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user634631 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S.
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    9 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    20 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark S.
    19 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    14 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul Sinclair
    9 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Lippert
    9 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
20 hours ago












$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
This depends on the text. Sometimes a mapping is a continuous function, sometimes it's any function at all.
$endgroup$
– Mark S.
19 hours ago












$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
14 hours ago




$begingroup$
@MarkS.: often, the books that assume that mappings are continuous mention it somewhere near the beginner, but it is easy to miss.
$endgroup$
– Taladris
14 hours ago












$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
Analysts often consider "function" to specifically refer to a mapping into either $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$ (depending on whether one is doing real or complex analysis). However for most everybody else, "function" and "mapping" are synonomous.
$endgroup$
– Paul Sinclair
9 hours ago














$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
You can think of a relation as a function from pairs of values to 0, if the relation does not hold, and 1 if it does hold; does that help clarify things?
$endgroup$
– Eric Lippert
9 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Good question. I can give you a simple example.




You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.




So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola



$$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$



This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
you the corresponding value of f(x)
- a mapping is really just another name
for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:



enter image description here



On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:



$$x^2+y^2=4$$



Its graph is given by:



enter image description here



Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
have one output. So we have to call this a relation.



Higher Dimensions



However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:



$$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$



Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:



$$ g(x, y) = 0 $$



In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:



$$ z = g(x, y) $$



and



$$ z = 0 $$



Which I've shown below:



enter image description here



Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.



Key takeaway (tl;dr)




Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
in the higher dimension.







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    The circle is hiding in plane sight.
    $endgroup$
    – Minix
    17 hours ago






  • 20




    $begingroup$
    This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    15 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
    $endgroup$
    – Taladris
    14 hours ago








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
    $endgroup$
    – BigbearZzz
    13 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
    $endgroup$
    – Apollys
    7 hours ago



















12












$begingroup$

Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
$$
f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
$$

a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.



In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.



The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.



The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
    $endgroup$
    – mathmandan
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
    $endgroup$
    – BigbearZzz
    12 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
    $endgroup$
    – mathmandan
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
    $endgroup$
    – BigbearZzz
    12 hours ago



















8












$begingroup$

There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    -1












    $begingroup$

    Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.



    There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.



    I Hope it Helps...






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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
      });


      }
      });






      user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073075%2fwhats-the-difference-between-relation-mapping-and-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0












      $begingroup$

      Good question. I can give you a simple example.




      You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.




      So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola



      $$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$



      This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
      you the corresponding value of f(x)
      - a mapping is really just another name
      for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
      equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:



      enter image description here



      On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:



      $$x^2+y^2=4$$



      Its graph is given by:



      enter image description here



      Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
      I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
      have one output. So we have to call this a relation.



      Higher Dimensions



      However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:



      $$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$



      Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
      have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:



      $$ g(x, y) = 0 $$



      In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:



      $$ z = g(x, y) $$



      and



      $$ z = 0 $$



      Which I've shown below:



      enter image description here



      Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.



      Key takeaway (tl;dr)




      Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
      in the higher dimension.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 5




        $begingroup$
        The circle is hiding in plane sight.
        $endgroup$
        – Minix
        17 hours ago






      • 20




        $begingroup$
        This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
        $endgroup$
        – Tobias Kildetoft
        15 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
        $endgroup$
        – Taladris
        14 hours ago








      • 7




        $begingroup$
        While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        13 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
        $endgroup$
        – Apollys
        7 hours ago
















      0












      $begingroup$

      Good question. I can give you a simple example.




      You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.




      So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola



      $$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$



      This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
      you the corresponding value of f(x)
      - a mapping is really just another name
      for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
      equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:



      enter image description here



      On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:



      $$x^2+y^2=4$$



      Its graph is given by:



      enter image description here



      Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
      I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
      have one output. So we have to call this a relation.



      Higher Dimensions



      However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:



      $$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$



      Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
      have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:



      $$ g(x, y) = 0 $$



      In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:



      $$ z = g(x, y) $$



      and



      $$ z = 0 $$



      Which I've shown below:



      enter image description here



      Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.



      Key takeaway (tl;dr)




      Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
      in the higher dimension.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 5




        $begingroup$
        The circle is hiding in plane sight.
        $endgroup$
        – Minix
        17 hours ago






      • 20




        $begingroup$
        This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
        $endgroup$
        – Tobias Kildetoft
        15 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
        $endgroup$
        – Taladris
        14 hours ago








      • 7




        $begingroup$
        While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        13 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
        $endgroup$
        – Apollys
        7 hours ago














      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$

      Good question. I can give you a simple example.




      You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.




      So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola



      $$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$



      This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
      you the corresponding value of f(x)
      - a mapping is really just another name
      for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
      equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:



      enter image description here



      On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:



      $$x^2+y^2=4$$



      Its graph is given by:



      enter image description here



      Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
      I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
      have one output. So we have to call this a relation.



      Higher Dimensions



      However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:



      $$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$



      Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
      have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:



      $$ g(x, y) = 0 $$



      In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:



      $$ z = g(x, y) $$



      and



      $$ z = 0 $$



      Which I've shown below:



      enter image description here



      Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.



      Key takeaway (tl;dr)




      Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
      in the higher dimension.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Good question. I can give you a simple example.




      You can generally think of relations as functions in a higher dimensional space, intersected with a zero plane.




      So for example, lets take a parabola and a circle to demonstrate this. Imagine the parabola



      $$ f(x) = x^2 + 3x $$



      This is clearly a function of x, because if you give me an x value, I can give
      you the corresponding value of f(x)
      - a mapping is really just another name
      for a function. If we want to graph it, we can let the y value
      equal the output of $f$, so we would get this graph:



      enter image description here



      On the other hand, if we graph a circle, like:



      $$x^2+y^2=4$$



      Its graph is given by:



      enter image description here



      Now this is fundamentally different to the function. If you wanted the y value at x = 0,
      I can't point to a unique value, I'd have to say y = 2 or y = -2. A function can only
      have one output. So we have to call this a relation.



      Higher Dimensions



      However, we can use a clever trick for this circle. We can rewrite it as:



      $$ x^2 + y^2 - 4 = 0 $$



      Which is obviously the same thing, but on the left hand side, notice that we now
      have a function of (x,y), so we can think of this like:



      $$ g(x, y) = 0 $$



      In a higher dimension, this would be the intersection between the shapes:



      $$ z = g(x, y) $$



      and



      $$ z = 0 $$



      Which I've shown below:



      enter image description here



      Notice that same circle hiding in plain sight.



      Key takeaway (tl;dr)




      Relations are functions in a higher dimension, intersected with a zero plane
      in the higher dimension.








      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 19 hours ago

























      answered 19 hours ago









      user2662833user2662833

      1,048815




      1,048815








      • 5




        $begingroup$
        The circle is hiding in plane sight.
        $endgroup$
        – Minix
        17 hours ago






      • 20




        $begingroup$
        This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
        $endgroup$
        – Tobias Kildetoft
        15 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
        $endgroup$
        – Taladris
        14 hours ago








      • 7




        $begingroup$
        While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        13 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
        $endgroup$
        – Apollys
        7 hours ago














      • 5




        $begingroup$
        The circle is hiding in plane sight.
        $endgroup$
        – Minix
        17 hours ago






      • 20




        $begingroup$
        This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
        $endgroup$
        – Tobias Kildetoft
        15 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
        $endgroup$
        – Taladris
        14 hours ago








      • 7




        $begingroup$
        While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        13 hours ago






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
        $endgroup$
        – Apollys
        7 hours ago








      5




      5




      $begingroup$
      The circle is hiding in plane sight.
      $endgroup$
      – Minix
      17 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The circle is hiding in plane sight.
      $endgroup$
      – Minix
      17 hours ago




      20




      20




      $begingroup$
      This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
      $endgroup$
      – Tobias Kildetoft
      15 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      This is a pretty imprecise way to phrase things. What does "higher dimension" mean in general? What does a zero plane mean in general? Functions and relations are not something constrained to the real numbers and the like.
      $endgroup$
      – Tobias Kildetoft
      15 hours ago




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      14 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      I am not sure I am following. How do you describe the usual order relation on R (real numbers) as an intersection? Are you confusing equation and relation?
      $endgroup$
      – Taladris
      14 hours ago






      7




      7




      $begingroup$
      While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      13 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      While the pictures look nice, I don't really think this is an accurate description of "relation".
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      13 hours ago




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
      $endgroup$
      – Apollys
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Why is this accepted? This only confused things further.
      $endgroup$
      – Apollys
      7 hours ago











      12












      $begingroup$

      Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
      $$
      f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
      $$

      a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.



      In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.



      The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.



      The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago
















      12












      $begingroup$

      Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
      $$
      f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
      $$

      a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.



      In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.



      The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.



      The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago














      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$

      Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
      $$
      f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
      $$

      a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.



      In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.



      The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.



      The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Mathematically speaking, a mapping and a function are the same. We called the relation
      $$
      f={(x,y)in Xtimes Y : text{For all $x$ there exists a unique $y$ such that $(x,y)in f$} }
      $$

      a function from $X$ to $Y$, denoted by $f:Xto Y$. A mapping is just another word for a function, i.e. a relation that pairs exactly one element of $Y$ to each element of $X$.



      In practice, sometime one word is preferred over another, depending on the context.



      The word mapping is usually used when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a transformation of one object to another. For instance, a linear mapping $T:V to W$ signifies that we want to view $T$ as a transformation of $vin V$ to the vector $Tvin W$. Another example is a conformal map, which transforms a domain in $Bbb C$ to another domain.



      The word function is used more often and in various contexts. For example, when we want to view $f:Xto Y$ as a graph in $Xtimes Y$.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 13 hours ago

























      answered 19 hours ago









      BigbearZzzBigbearZzz

      8,09321651




      8,09321651












      • $begingroup$
        It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
        $endgroup$
        – mathmandan
        12 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        12 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
      $endgroup$
      – mathmandan
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      It looks like you're defining a set $f$ in terms of itself; I don't think that this is what you intended. (I agree, though, that "mapping" is synonymous with "function".)
      $endgroup$
      – mathmandan
      12 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @mathmandan It's just my lazy way of writing "For any $(x,y_1)$ and $(x,y_2)$ in $f$ we must have $y_1=y_2$". Strictly speaking, writing the condition like that is probably not the best way but it can be made rigorous if one wants.
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      12 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
      $endgroup$
      – mathmandan
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Yes...I guess I am saying that I would prefer the sentence you just wrote in your comment, to the "set-builder" notation that appears at the beginning of your answer. (Along with another condition, which is that every $xin X$ must appear in a pair $(x,y)in f$. This is the "left-total" part of Wuestenfux's answer.)
      $endgroup$
      – mathmandan
      12 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      12 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      12 hours ago











      8












      $begingroup$

      There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        8












        $begingroup$

        There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          There is basically no difference between mapping and function. In algebra, one uses the notion of operation which is the same as mapping or function. The notion of relation is more general. Functions are specific relations (those which are left-total and right-unique).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 20 hours ago









          WuestenfuxWuestenfux

          3,9701411




          3,9701411























              -1












              $begingroup$

              Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.



              There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.



              I Hope it Helps...






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                -1












                $begingroup$

                Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.



                There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.



                I Hope it Helps...






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  -1












                  -1








                  -1





                  $begingroup$

                  Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.



                  There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.



                  I Hope it Helps...






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Relation and Function are quite different as the later only consider unique images.



                  There's not much difference between a mapping and function. The only difference that I can think of is that mapping is just the diagramatical representation of a function or an arrow diagram representation of a function which is quite clear for functions defined on the finite sets, while for infinite sets the two notions coincide.



                  I Hope it Helps...







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 19 hours ago









                  Devendra Singh RanaDevendra Singh Rana

                  757416




                  757416






















                      user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      user634631 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073075%2fwhats-the-difference-between-relation-mapping-and-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Сан-Квентин

                      Алькесар

                      Josef Freinademetz