Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Injective functions are not the same thing as injective correspondences, correct? Injective functions are a subset of the injective correspondences.

For example in $y^2 = x$, y is not a function of x, but this is still a correspondence between $\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Can we say that the correspondence, $C:X \rightarrow Y$ is injective? (Since, if $C(x_1) = C(x_2)$ then $x_1 = x_2$.) Can we say it is also a surjective correspondence since every y-value has at least one (mostly two) pre-images?

Or am I way off base applying these definitions to things that are not functions?

Last question. "Mappings" are, as the Wikipedia suggests, the same thing as functions. (For some reason I thought mappings were correspondences. In fact, it is in my old notes. My old notes are wrong, right? )

share|improve this question
1  
No, it's still perfectly valid to apply the definition of injectivity and surjectivity to relations; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… . –  Qiaochu Yuan Nov 10 '10 at 20:42
    
@a little don: Some books use "injective correspondence" to refer to "bijective functions". I would personally not call a "multivalue function/relation" like $y^2=x$ (thinking of this as giving you values of $y$ for every $x$) a "corresopndence". And... what is your $C$ in the second paragraph? As for "mapping", again you are dealing with a question of nomenclature preference. Some people use 'mapping into' for injective functions. (There are even some old algebra books that use "isomorphism" for one-to-one homomorphism, and "isomorphism onto" for bijective homomorphism). –  Arturo Magidin Nov 10 '10 at 20:43
    
I was thinking that "C" could be the name for the relation/correspondence. Does my notation imply that C must be a function? –  a little don Nov 10 '10 at 20:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

What you're describing is universally known as a "relation." It is true that you can have an injective relation which is not a function. Unfortunately, there are different uses for the term "correspondence" -- used alone, it can denote a general relation, but "one-to-one correspondence" can also denote a bijection. The safest thing to do is probably to avoid using the word altogether.

share|improve this answer
    
"The safest thing to do is probably to avoid using the word altogether." Good. That I can do. This was making me very confused. –  a little don Nov 10 '10 at 20:46
    
Come to think of it, the use of the term "one to one correspondence" to mean "bijection" makes the word "correspondence" even more confusing. I think you are very right that it is better to avoid it. –  a little don Nov 10 '10 at 20:52

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.