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












10












$begingroup$


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.







$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    10 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.
    9 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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider a "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
    47 secs ago
















10












$begingroup$


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.







$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    10 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.
    9 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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider a "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
    47 secs ago














10












10








10


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 29 mins 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 10 hours ago









user634631user634631

534




534




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.








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    10 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.
    9 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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider a "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
    47 secs ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
    $endgroup$
    – Yanko
    10 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.
    9 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
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Analysts often consider a "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
    47 secs ago








2




2




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




$begingroup$
I think you're right. I don't know any difference between mapping and function.
$endgroup$
– Yanko
10 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.
9 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.
9 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
5 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
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
Analysts often consider a "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
47 secs ago




$begingroup$
Analysts often consider a "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
47 secs ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
    $endgroup$
    – Caleth
    7 hours ago








  • 2




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






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    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
    5 hours ago








  • 3




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



















9












$begingroup$

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
    3 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
    3 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
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
    $endgroup$
    – BigbearZzz
    2 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









      2












      $begingroup$

      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











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
        $endgroup$
        – Caleth
        7 hours ago








      • 2




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






      • 12




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago








      • 3




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
















      2












      $begingroup$

      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











      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
        $endgroup$
        – Caleth
        7 hours ago








      • 2




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






      • 12




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago








      • 3




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














      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$

      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 9 hours ago

























      answered 9 hours ago









      user2662833user2662833

      1,052815




      1,052815












      • $begingroup$
        You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
        $endgroup$
        – Caleth
        7 hours ago








      • 2




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






      • 12




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago








      • 3




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


















      • $begingroup$
        You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
        $endgroup$
        – Caleth
        7 hours ago








      • 2




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






      • 12




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        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
        5 hours ago








      • 3




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
















      $begingroup$
      You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
      $endgroup$
      – Caleth
      7 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      You don't need it to be a zero plane, it's equivalent to intersect $ z = x^2 + y^2 $ with $ z = 4 $
      $endgroup$
      – Caleth
      7 hours ago






      2




      2




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




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




      12




      12




      $begingroup$
      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
      5 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
      5 hours ago




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      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
      5 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
      5 hours ago






      3




      3




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




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











      9












      $begingroup$

      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
        3 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
        3 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
        2 hours ago










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
















      9












      $begingroup$

      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
        3 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
        3 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
        2 hours ago










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














      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      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 3 hours ago

























      answered 9 hours ago









      BigbearZzzBigbearZzz

      8,07321650




      8,07321650












      • $begingroup$
        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
        3 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
        3 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
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        2 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
        3 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
        3 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
        2 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
        $endgroup$
        – BigbearZzz
        2 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      3 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
      2 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
      2 hours ago












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




      $begingroup$
      I didn't try to be precise with the set theoretic notations, sorry for that.
      $endgroup$
      – BigbearZzz
      2 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 10 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 9 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

                      Bundesstraße 106

                      Verónica Boquete

                      Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten