Content deleted Content added
Line 62:
:I don’t understand the suggestion. Functions are not transitive. What do you mean by a transitive relativity?—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]] [[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 13:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
::{{In5}}Sorry; I should have been more clear in stating my original suggestion. I was [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#January 15th#Trouble Reading an Article|having trouble reading this article's section on functions]] because some of the notation used in their description seemed confusing. This prompted me to ask about it at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics|Mathematics Reference Desk]] in an ongoing discussion that you may join if you wish. I think that the people who responded to my initial post fixed any outstanding problems, but I still wanted to suggest that the first instance of this confusing notation, <math>\forall x,y,z\,(x F y \wedge x F z \rightarrow y=z)</math>, be revised to reference the fact that a similar notation had already been used in [[Implementation of mathematics in set theory#Properties and kinds of relations|the previous section]] to denote [[Transitive relation|transitive relations]]. I just wanted to know if it would be appropriate to rid the article of the confusion caused by this kind of redundancy.
::Thanks for listening,
::{{In5}}[[User:BCG999|BCG999]] ([[User talk:BCG999|talk]]) 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:::(That was me actually, who fixed it.) The condition of transitivity, <math>\forall x,y,z\,(x R y \wedge y R z \rightarrow x R z)</math>, is quite different from functionality, apart from the superficial fact that it happens to be a Horn formula with three universal quantifiers. There is no redundancy here, and there is no sensible way to reduce one to the other. What do you find confusing about it?—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]] [[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 18:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
::::{{In5}}Silly me, I must have overlooked that tiny difference and filled it in with something from my apparently-fallible memory when skimming back over it to compare the two. I hope that I didn't project too much of my own idiosyncratically-muddled thought processes into your head and would like to apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you because of how I amreading this article to figure out how exactly I could define an <math>n</math>-tuple as a function that I can use to define a multiset as the foundation for the sample space of any probability distribution that I might have to work with as part of an assignment for my high-school probability-and-statistics class and thus don't have much experience reading formal expressions of mathematical logic. I'm doing this because I though that I might be able to describe such a sample space as a normal set and found that it might make my math easier later to do so because understand a lot of the logic behind set theory's operations. However, I soon learned that sets cannot accommodate multiple occurrences of individual event subsets of itself as required by empirical probability and the problems that I will later work through. In retrospect, maybe we should take this back to the reference desk…
::::Forgive me,
::::{{In5}}[[User:BCG999|BCG999]] ([[User talk:BCG999|talk]]) 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
| |||