0
$\begingroup$

A function $f: X \to Y$ is called linear iff

$f(x_1+x_2) = f(x_1) + f(x_2)$

It is what I learned.

Is there any concept like 'linear' defined on the functions whose input and output are sets.

A function $f: X \to Y$ is called 'ABCD' iff $f(X1 \cup X2) = f(X1) \cup f(X2)$

Is there any concept corresponding to 'ABCD' here?

// Thanks, lulu I clarify here:

f is defined on some fixed set and that X_i denotes subsets of that set.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ May be "additive"? $\endgroup$ – Alessandro Blasetti Nov 7 '16 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ Well, if we take the lattice of sets with intersection and union, the property becomes join-semilattice homomorphism. $\endgroup$ – lisyarus Nov 7 '16 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ This isn't clear. What are $X,Y$? I guess they are collections of sets closed under union? Are they power sets of fixed sets? $\endgroup$ – lulu Nov 7 '16 at 14:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, the point should be clarified. In the posted solution below, the writer is assuming that you have $f$ is defined on some fixed set and that $X_i$ denotes subsets of that set. If that's what you intended then indeed all functions satisfy your rule. If, to the contrary, you meant $X$ is some collection of sets (closed under union) and $f$ is defined on that collection, then not all functions satisfy your rule. $\endgroup$ – lulu Nov 7 '16 at 14:49
1
$\begingroup$
  1. If $f(x_1+x_2)=f(x_1)+f(x_2)$ then $f$ is called additive and not linear !

If $X$ and $Y$ are vector spaces over a field $F$ and we have additional

$f( \alpha x)= \alpha f(x)$ for all $ \alpha \in F$ and all $x \in X$,

then f is called linear.

  1. For each function $f:X \to Y$ we have

$f(X_1 \cup X_2)=f(X_1) \cup f(X_2)$ for all subsets $X_1,X_2$ of $X$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the explanation. So the second statement is always true for all kinds of such functions? Doesn't this theorem have any name? (since it's too trivial?...) $\endgroup$ – syko Nov 7 '16 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ 2. seems false to me. Suppose $X$ and $Y$ are sets of nonempty, finite subsets of $\mathbb R$, and $f(X)$ is a singleton containing $max(X)$ – then $f(A\cup B)=\{max(max(A), max(B))\}$ while $f(A)\cup f(B)=\{max(A), max(B)\}$ which are not the same. What's more, how about $f$ which value is not a set? The RHS $f(A)\cup f(B)$ might not even be defined... $\endgroup$ – CiaPan Nov 7 '16 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ What you have written seems very confused to me ! $\endgroup$ – Fred Nov 7 '16 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ The confusion lies in the OP's intent. If $f$ is just defined on some collection of sets, then the desired property need not hold. For example, say $X$ is the power set on $\{1,2\}$ and for $S\in X$ define $f(S)=\emptyset$ if $S\neq \emptyset$ and $f(\emptyset)=\{1\}$. $\endgroup$ – lulu Nov 7 '16 at 14:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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