Testing for a function

Agent Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2023
Messages
339
I've been taught the vertical line test to determine whether a given expression is a function or not.

Is there an algebraic test as well? I mean, hypothetically, we could brute force it by testing whether for any given x gives 2/more y's over a range, but that's impossible (there are an infinite number of points).

One guess that I made is \(\displaystyle y^n = \text{Something}, n \in \text{Evens}\), can't be a function, because \(\displaystyle y = \pm \text{Something else}\).
 
[math]d'abord\>tu\>tue,\>puis\>tu\>carresse:\\ Plato's\>cave\>(interior):\\ x_1=2\\ x_2=2\\ y_1=a+b\\ y_2=a*b\\ y_3=a^b\\ Plato's\>effort\>(boundry):\\ x_1=2\\ x_2=4\\ Plato's\>regret(?)\>(boundry):\\ Y_3=16\\ E=.\\ T=-\\ Plato's\>cave\>(exterior):\\ I=..\\ S=...\\ \\[/math]
 
\(\displaystyle y^n = \text{Something}, n \in \text{Evens}\), can't be a function
That's not true, if you're considering all possible functions.

PS: I think "evens" is British English for 'even'. Anyway, that word is not good notation for whatever you have in mind. If you're going to assign English statements as set names in maths, then you ought to be specific.
[imath]\;[/imath]
 
That's not true, if you're considering all possible functions.

PS: I think "evens" is British English for 'even'. Anyway, that word is not good notation for whatever you have in mind. If you're going to assign English statements as set names in maths, then you ought to be specific.
[imath]\;[/imath]
I was trying to generalize the [imath]y^2 = x[/imath] problem, where [imath]y = \pm \sqrt x[/imath].

Is this [imath]y^6 = x \implies y = \pm \sqrt [6] x[/imath] correct?
 
I was trying to generalize the [imath]y^2 = x[/imath] problem, where [imath]y = \pm \sqrt x[/imath].

Is this [imath]y^6 = x \implies y = \pm \sqrt [6] x[/imath] correct?
No. [imath] y^6=x [/imath] has six different solutions. Two of them are real and of opposite signs (by chance since 6 is even), but another 4 solutions are complex. The notation [imath] y^2=x \Longrightarrow y=\pm \sqrt{x} [/imath] is generally sloppy. y is one number and cannot be two numbers. Correct would be [imath] y^2=x \Longrightarrow y\in \{-\sqrt{x},+\sqrt{x}\}. [/imath] This is also why the same for [imath] y^6=x [/imath] is wrong. We do not have the same implication. It would be
[math] y^6=x\Longrightarrow y\in \left\{\sqrt[6]{x},-\sqrt[6]{x},\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(1+i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(-1-i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(1-i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(-1+i \sqrt{3})\right\} [/math]The set on the right cannot be written as [imath] \pm \sqrt[6]{x} [/imath] even if we were sloppy. It needs either to add the complex roots or to add an explanation that we only consider the real roots. But this would be immediately wrong in case we had [imath] y^7=x [/imath] were the plus-minus notation fails.

The general notation would be: [math] y^n=x \Longrightarrow y=\sqrt[n]{x}\cdot e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}} \text{ for some } k\in \{1,2,\ldots,n\} [/math]
 
I was trying to generalize
No. Your generalization is "y^n = something". By switching to y^2 = x, you've now specialized.

My point is this: not all functions of y vary as x changes. The issue is this: you state lots of global claims in your threads only to backtrack later by constraining prior statements.

Matrix is making my head spin. I need to get off this ride for awhile. :)
[imath]\;[/imath]
 
One guess that I made is yn=Something,n∈Evens\displaystyle y^n = \text{Something}, n \in \text{Evens}yn=Something,n∈Evens, can't be a function, because y=±Something else\displaystyle y = \pm \text{Something else}y=±Something else
a function provides for functionality, the basic Idea.
a function can be something basic as Y=0->X-axis , X=0->Y-axis.
All numbers (-infinite->0->+infinite) can be represented as points on a line, doesn't mean all points can be represented on a piece of paper, not even by brute force.
so the idea input->function->output becomes (written as points):
[math](x_1,0),(x_2,0),(x_3,0),...\rightarrow f(x)\rightarrow(x_1,f(x_1)),(x_2(fx_2)),(x_3,f(x_2)),...[/math]starting from a point on the X-axis with a vertical line, towards the function, then change to a horizontal line until you reach the Y-axis
[math](0,y_0),(0,y_2),(0,y_3),...\rightarrow f(y)\rightarrow(y_1,f(y_1)),(y_2(fy_2)),(y_3,f(y_3)),...[/math]starting from a point on the Y-axis with a vertical line, towards the function, then change to a horizontal line until you reach the X-axis
it might be a good idea, to stick to the first format for a while (from X-axis to Y-axis), as it is the same (just turn your paper by 90°)

using the functionality from the X-and Y-axis (using numbers):
I am not sure if you understand below (decimal number system) as a placeholder for digits (0-9)
[math]10^n|...|10^2|10^1|10^0|.|10^{-1}|10^{-2}|...10^{-n}[/math]the same exists for writing functions (polinomials):
[math]\frac{ax^n+...+bx^2+cx^1+dx^0}{ex^{-n}+...+fx^{-2}+gx^{-1}}[/math](note a-g) are numbers or coefficients
you can write:
x=2 a constant
y=x or f(x)=y a polinomial of the first degree
[math]ax^2+bx+c=0\>or -y=ax^2+bx\>are\>the\>same\>thing[/math] a polinomial of the 2nd degree
....
try wikki or graph calculator for research
note: the evens(even's) to describe even numbers.....mmmm
(the odds means something completely different)
 
[imath]y=\pm \sqrt{x}[/imath] is generally sloppy. y is one number and cannot be two numbers.
Hi. I wouldn't say that it's generally sloppy. It says y is one OR the other, not both. I do agree that people need to change notation, whenever they want to use both simultaneously (eg: y1 and y2) versus working with just one or the other. :)
[imath]\;[/imath]
 
starting from a point on the Y-axis with a vertical line, towards the function, then change to a horizontal line until you reach the X-axis
it might be a good idea, to stick to the first format for a while (from X-axis to Y-axis), as it is the same (just turn your paper by 90°)
oeps,copy/past error
starting from a point on the Y-axis with a horizontal line, towards the function, then change to a vertical line until you reach the X-axis
 
Hi. I wouldn't say that it's generally sloppy. It says y is one OR the other, not both. I do agree that people need to change notation, whenever they want to use both simultaneously (eg: y1 and y2) versus working with just one or the other. :)
[imath]\;[/imath]
So why not say [imath] y\in \{\pm \sqrt{x}\} [/imath]? That would be correct and only a minor change. It is sloppy to equal one entity with two entities. You can be sloppy if you master the matter, but not before. It ultimately leads to unnecessary mistakes.
 
@Otis thanks for clarifying the notation [imath]\pm x[/imath].

@Perdurat & @Otis : Both of you seem to concur that there's no need for x and y to bear a independent-dependent relationship. Would you agree though that in practice that most (useful) functions are of this kind?

Capture.PNG
Above is a function's structure. I feel it's better, because it's more useful, if there's some processing of the input inside of the function box, after which the we get the output. I gather this is because we can actually determine the output by carrying out some computation.

I recall my school days when we had match the following questions. There was some logic to these questions; I mean gills-fish, lung-mammals matching makes sense and that's why gills-mammals, lungs-fish won't fetch you any marks. Per what I find is too broad a definition of a function, lungs-fish and gills-mammals is a legitimate answer. Why is the definition like that?
 
No. [imath] y^6=x [/imath] has six different solutions. Two of them are real and of opposite signs (by chance since 6 is even), but another 4 solutions are complex. The notation [imath] y^2=x \Longrightarrow y=\pm \sqrt{x} [/imath] is generally sloppy. y is one number and cannot be two numbers. Correct would be [imath] y^2=x \Longrightarrow y\in \{-\sqrt{x},+\sqrt{x}\}. [/imath] This is also why the same for [imath] y^6=x [/imath] is wrong. We do not have the same implication. It would be
[math] y^6=x\Longrightarrow y\in \left\{\sqrt[6]{x},-\sqrt[6]{x},\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(1+i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(-1-i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(1-i \sqrt{3}),\dfrac{\sqrt[6]{x}}{2}(-1+i \sqrt{3})\right\} [/math]The set on the right cannot be written as [imath] \pm \sqrt[6]{x} [/imath] even if we were sloppy. It needs either to add the complex roots or to add an explanation that we only consider the real roots. But this would be immediately wrong in case we had [imath] y^7=x [/imath] were the plus-minus notation fails.

The general notation would be: [math] y^n=x \Longrightarrow y=\sqrt[n]{x}\cdot e^{\frac{2\pi i}{k}} \text{ for some } k\in \{1,2,\ldots,n\} [/math]
If we consider real solutions only then true for [imath]y^6 = x \implies y = \pm \sqrt [6] x[/imath], correct?
 
If we consider real solutions only then true for [imath]y^6 = x \implies y = \pm \sqrt [6] x[/imath], correct?
Yes. But this holds only for even powers. Imagine a circle of radius [imath] \sqrt[6]{x} [/imath] in a planar coordinate system, say with the horizontal [imath] x [/imath] and a vertical [imath] y [/imath] axis.

Next, we draw a starting point at [imath] (x,y)=\left(\sqrt[6]{a},0\right) [/imath] on the perimeter of the circle. It is the rightmost point of the circle, and it lies on the [imath] x [/imath]-axis.

Then we divide the 360° of the circle into six even parts and draw intersection points on the perimeter of the circle, i.e. at 0°=360°, 60°, 120°,180°, 240°, 300°. These points correspond to the zeroes of [imath] y^6=x. [/imath] The real solutions are the points on the [imath] x [/imath]-axis, which is the starting (and end) point at 0° = 360° corresponding to [imath] +\sqrt[6]{x}[/imath] and the point at 180° corresponding to [imath] -\sqrt[6]{x}.[/imath] The other four points are the complex solutions.

The same would work for [imath] y^8=x .[/imath] That would give segments at 0°=360°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°. The point at 0° corresponds to [imath] +\sqrt[8]{x} [/imath] and at 180° to [imath] -\sqrt[8]{x} [/imath].

An odd number like e.g. [imath] y^3=x [/imath] would result in 0°=360°, 120°, 240° and wouldn't hit the 180° point, so we have only one real solution [imath] \sqrt[3]{x}. [/imath] The polynomial [imath] y^3=x [/imath] splits into [imath]0= y^3-x=(y-\sqrt[3]{x})(y^2+\sqrt[3]{x}y+\sqrt[3]{x}^2) [/imath] with only one real zero.
 
@fresh_42

So because \(\displaystyle \sqrt [6] x\) is a 6th degree polynomial, according to the fundamental theorem of algebra, it had 6 roots i.e. \(\displaystyle (x - r_1)(x - r_2)(x - r_3)(x - r_4)(x - r_5)(x - r_6) = 0\), is thatwhat you're saying? Is it a 6th degree polynomial though?

If you divide the circle into 6 parts, each angle will be 60 degrees, yep. Are we using symmetry to distribute the roots?
 
@fresh_42

So because \(\displaystyle \sqrt [6] x\) is a 6th degree polynomial, according to the fundamental theorem of algebra, it had 6 roots i.e. \(\displaystyle (x - r_1)(x - r_2)(x - r_3)(x - r_4)(x - r_5)(x - r_6) = 0\), is thatwhat you're saying? Is it a 6th degree polynomial though?

If you divide the circle into 6 parts, each angle will be 60 degrees, yep. Are we using symmetry to distribute the roots?
Yes. The polynomial is [imath] x^6-c=0 [/imath] where [imath] x [/imath] is the variable and [imath] c [/imath] a given real number. That would be the usual way of looking at it. You wrote [imath] y^n = something [/imath] and [imath] y^6=x [/imath] where [imath] something = x [/imath] is the given real number.

My first problem here is:

Should I remain in your language with [imath] y,x [/imath] where [imath] x [/imath] is a given number and [imath] y [/imath] the variable, the values we are looking for and automatically create confusion if I talk of polynomials with the variable [imath] y [/imath] and a real number [imath] x [/imath], ...

... or should I introduce the equation [imath] x^6=c [/imath] which is the usual notation of polynomials and confuse you by the new role of [imath] x [/imath] which all of a sudden isn't a known number anymore but rather the new variable.

See, notation matters, and [imath] y^6=x [/imath] was a more than problematic choice of letters. So before we both get lost in notation and confuse ourselves by using different notations, please answer my question before I will answer yours. Make a choice:

a) [math] y^6=x [/math] with polynomials [imath] y^n+c_{n-1}y^{n-1}+\ldots+c_2y^2+c_1y+c_0 [/imath] and real numbers [imath] x\in \mathbb{R} [/imath]

or the more usual notation

b) [math] x^6=c=c_0 [/math] with polynomials [imath] x^n+c_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\ldots+c_2x^2+c_1x+c_0 [/imath] and real numbers [imath] c\in \mathbb{R} [/imath]

Which notation shall I use? Where do you want to be confused, by unusual polynomials and constants (your notation), or by changing the problem into [imath] x^6=c [/imath] (my notation) and forgetting that [imath] y,x [/imath] mess you started with?
 
@Perdurat & @Otis : Both of you seem to concur that there's no need for x and y to bear a independent-dependent relationship. Would you agree though that in practice that most (useful) functions are of this kind?

Capture.PNG

I can't speak for mr Otis, I think his math is mature enough that he can speak for himself, I can however observe that YOU made you're 1st function.
now imagine, this function to be something like a piece of pipe or the handlebars of a bycycle. now place "your feet" firmly on the placeholders, provided for (Plato's Cave), as if you just left the cave: what do you see to the right?to the left?in front of you?
 
I choose (a) @fresh_42, which is the original problem I posed.
Ok, but then be aware of the fact that [imath] y [/imath] is our unknown, and [imath] x [/imath] is a given, known real number.
@fresh_42

So because \(\displaystyle \sqrt [6] x\) is a 6th degree polynomial, according to the fundamental theorem of algebra, it had 6 roots i.e. \(\displaystyle (x - r_1)(x - r_2)(x - r_3)(x - r_4)(x - r_5)(x - r_6) = 0\), is thatwhat you're saying? Is it a 6th degree polynomial though?
No. You have made another choice.

The polynomial is thus [imath] y^6-x=(y-c_1)\cdot (y-c_2)\cdot(y-c_3)\cdot(y-c_4)\cdot(y-c_5)\cdot(y-c_6) [/imath] by the fundamental theorem of algebra, yes. The complex numbers [imath] c_k\in \mathbb{C} [/imath] are called zeros or roots of the polynomial.
If you divide the circle into 6 parts, each angle will be 60 degrees, yep. Are we using symmetry to distribute the roots?

The other way around. The zeros [imath] c_k [/imath] turn out to be distributed that way. But let's proceed step by step.

We have [imath] y^6=x. [/imath] This can be written as [imath] 1=\dfrac{y^6}{x}= \left(\dfrac{y}{\sqrt[6]{x}}\right)^6=z^6 [/imath] with a new variable [imath] z=\dfrac{y}{\sqrt[6]{x}}. [/imath] Our equation is now [imath] z^6=1. [/imath] This is qualitatively the same problem as before, but I will not have to carry that nasty real radius [imath] \sqrt[6]{x} [/imath] with me all the time. We now have a radius one, or in your language
[math] z^6=1 \text{ AND } z\in \mathbb{R}\Longrightarrow z=\pm \sqrt[6]{1}=\pm 1. [/math]But what about the other, complex roots? We have

[math]\begin{array}{lll} 1&=z^6=(z-c_1)\cdot (z-c_2)\cdot(z-c_3)\cdot(z-c_4)\cdot(z-c_5)\cdot(z-c_6) \\ &=z^6 - z^5\cdot (c_1 + c_2 + c_3 + c_4 + c_5 + c_6)\\ &\phantom{=} + z^4\cdot (c_1 c_2 + c_1 c_3 + c_2 c_3 + c_1 c_4 + c_2 c_4 + c_3 c_4 + c_1 c_5 + c_2 c_5 + c_3 c_5 + c_4 c_5 + c_1 c_6 + c_2 c_6 + c_3 c_6 + c_4 c_6 + c_5 c_6 )\\ &\phantom{=} - z^3\cdot( c_1 c_2 c_3 + c_1 c_2 c_4 + c_1 c_3 c_4 +c_2 c_3 c_4 + c_1 c_2 c_5 + c_1 c_3 c_5 + c_2 c_3 c_5 + c_1 c_4 c_5 + c_2 c_4 c_5 + c_3 c_4 c_5 + c_1 c_2 c_6 + c_1 c_3 c_6 + c_2 c_3 c_6 + c_1 c_4 c_6 + c_2 c_4 c_6 + c_3 c_4 c_6 + c_1 c_5 c_6 + c_2 c_5 c_6 + c_3 c_5 c_6 + c_4 c_5 c_6 )\\ &\phantom{=} + z^2\cdot (c_1 c_2 c_3 c_4 + c_1 c_2 c_3 c_5 + c_1 c_2 c_4 c_5 + c_1 c_3 c_4 c_5 + c_2 c_3 c_4 c_5 + c_1 c_2 c_3 c_6 + c_1 c_2 c_4 c_6 + c_1 c_3 c_4 c_6 + c_2 c_3 c_4 c_6 + c_1 c_2 c_5 c_6 + c_1 c_3 c_5 c_6 + c_2 c_3 c_5 c_6 + c_1 c_4 c_5 c_6 + c_2 c_4 c_5 c_6 + c_3 c_4 c_5 c_6 )\\ &\phantom{=} - z^1\cdot ( c_1 c_2 c_3 c_4 c_5 + c_1 c_2 c_3 c_4 c_6+ c_1 c_2 c_3 c_5 c_6 + c_1 c_2 c_4 c_5 c_6 + c_1 c_3 c_4 c_5 c_6 + c_2 c_3 c_4 c_5 c_6)\\ &\phantom{=} + z^0\cdot+ c_1 c_2 c_3 c_4 c_5 c_6 \\ &=z^6-p_5(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)z^5+p_4(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)z^4-p_3(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)z^3+p_2(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)z^2-p_1(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)z+p_0(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6) \end{array}[/math]
We can try and solve this equation system for the roots [imath] c_k [/imath] now by comparing the coefficients of the polynomials. This gives
[math]\begin{array}{lll} p_5(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)&=0\\ p_4(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)&=0\\ p_3(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)&=0\\ p_2(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)&=0\\ p_1(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)&=0 \end{array}[/math]and [imath] p_0(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)=c_1\cdot c_2\cdot c_3\cdot c_4\cdot c_5\cdot c_6 =1 .[/imath] This is nasty.

Your symmetry argument is faster. We can enumerate the roots however we want. Every permutation of the [imath] c_k [/imath] results in the exact same system of equations [imath] p_k(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6)=0\; (k=1,\ldots,5). [/imath] There is no way to distinguish the roots from here. We also know that [imath] c_1=1 [/imath] is a valid root. It is a point on the unit circle, the circle of radius one and center in the origin of a Cartesian coordinate system. This means that all roots have the length one, since otherwise, we could distinguish them from [imath] c_1 [/imath] which we can't. So all roots are on the unit circle. They also have to be distributed uniformly, since otherwise, we could distinguish them from [imath] c_1 [/imath] which we can't. All multivariate polynomials [imath] p_k(c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6) (k<6) [/imath] are zero and the product of all roots is one.

The coordinate system with the unit circle lives in the plane with a real coordinate and a pure imaginary coordinate because our roots [imath] c_k [/imath] are complex numbers. (I cannot name the axis since you occupied [imath] x,y [/imath] and any other letters are misleading. So we have a real axis and a purely imaginary axis and six roots uniformly distributed on the unit circle, in this case by a distance of [imath] \dfrac{360°}{6}=60° [/imath] by counting from [imath] c_1=1 [/imath] on the real axis, i.e. at [imath] 0°. [/imath]

Euler's formula gives us all six roots [imath] (k=1,2,3,4,5,6) [/imath]
[math] c_k= \mathfrak{Re}(c_k)+ i \cdot \mathfrak{Im}(c_k) =\cos \left(\dfrac{k}{n}\cdot 360°\right)+i \cdot \sin \left(\dfrac{k}{n}\cdot 360°\right)=e^{\frac{360° i \cdot k}{n}}=e^{ \frac{2\pi i k}{n}} [/math]
 
I made a mistake with the symmetry argument. Simple enumeration isn't sufficient since the [imath] p_k(c_1\ldots,c_6) [/imath] are always symmetric.

It is probably easiest to show that all six numbers
[math]\begin{array}{lll} c_1&=1\\ c_2&=\cos 60° + i \sin 60° = e^{\frac{2\pi i }{6}}\\ c_3&=\cos 120° + i \sin 120° = e^{\frac{4\pi i }{6}}\\ c_4&=-1\\ c_5&=\cos 240° + i \sin 240° = e^{\frac{8\pi i }{6}}\\ c_6&=\cos 300° + i \sin 300° = e^{\frac{10\pi i }{6}}\\ \end{array}[/math]are actual roots of [imath] z^6=1 .[/imath] That is easy since [imath] \left(e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{6}}\right)^6=e^{2\pi i k}=\left(e^{2\pi i }\right)^k=1^k=1,[/imath] or [imath] \left(e^{\frac{360° i k}{6}}\right)^6=e^{360° i k}=\left(e^{360° i }\right)^k=1^k=1, [/imath] or with a little bit more work to do by the trigonometric formulas. Since [imath] z^6=1 [/imath] cannot have more than six roots, we have all of them.

For [imath] y^6=x [/imath] you have to multiply every root of [imath] z^6=1 [/imath] by the positive real number [imath] \sqrt[6]{x}. [/imath]
 
@fresh_42 , muchas gracias for your help, but these concepts are beyond my ken.

I'll tell you what I know and maybe you could curate your comments based on that.
1. The fundamental theorem of algebra: A polynomial of the \(\displaystyle n^{th}\) degree has \(\displaystyle n\) roots.
2. I can't see how \(\displaystyle y^6 = x\) is a \(\displaystyle 6^{\text{th}}\) degree polynomial, unless you're swapping the x and y.
 
Top