2
$\begingroup$

I understand that a conditional statement is said to be vacuously true in the case that its antecedent is false, in which case the conditional statement is, itself, true. However, what about the following:

Let $A$ and $B$ be sets such that $A \subseteq B$. Let $f: A \to \mathbb{R}$ be a map. Let $b \in B$ such that $f(b)$ is not defined. Fix an arbitrary $\varepsilon > 0$ and consider the following statement: $$ f(b) < \varepsilon. $$

Is this true or false? The more I think about it, the more ambiguous it seems. After all, if it is true then its negation $ f(b) \geq \varepsilon $ should be false, yet this makes no more sense than for $ f(b) < \varepsilon $ to be false in the case that $f(b)$ is undefined. Is there another term for this besides vacuous truth?

Edit: The context in which this question arises is if a function can be considered continuous at a point at which it is not defined. Let $X$ and $Y$ be metric spaces. Let $A \subseteq X$. Let $a \in A$. Let $f : A \to Y$ be a map. Then, define the phrase "$f$ is continuous at $a$'' to mean the following: $$ \forall \varepsilon > 0, \hspace{1mm} \exists\hspace{1mm} \delta > 0 \ni \hspace{4mm} x\in N_\delta^X(a)\cap A \implies d_Y (f(x), f(a)) < \varepsilon $$ where $N_\delta^X(a)$ denotes a neighborhood in the metric space $X$ of radius $\delta$, centered at $a$, and $d_Y$ denotes the metric of $Y$. So, if we apply this to an $x\in X \setminus A$, $f(x)$ is undefined and $x \in N_\delta^X(a)\cap A$ is false. Does it then follow that the conditional statement in the definition of continuity at $x$ is vacuously true. Hence, $f$ is continuous at at point $x$ for which $f(x)$ is undefined.

So, in the original question, $f$ is like $d_Y$ and $b$ is like the pair $(f(x), f(a)) \in Y \times Y$. Analytic definitions aside, the heart of the question is this: If an implication is characterized by a false antecedent and a consequent which is neither true nor false. Is the implication itself true?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A statement of the form "For all $x$ such that a certain condition holds, ..." is vacuously true iff the certain condition holds for no $x$. $\endgroup$ – Evan Aad Jul 19 '19 at 14:59
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ if $f(b)$ not defined, it isn't a real number, so inequalities of any kind mentioning it don't make sense. $\endgroup$ – coffeemath Jul 19 '19 at 15:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The "statement" $f(b)<\epsilon$ is not true and is not false. It is a "statement" without sense because $f(b)$ is not defined. Actually you could also say that it is no statement at all, so that it cannot be labeled with "true" or "false". $\endgroup$ – drhab Jul 19 '19 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @coffeemath In the context of set theory, it is (when fully unfolded into set theoretic primitives) a valid formula regardless of whether it makes "intuitive" sense or not. $\endgroup$ – Derek Elkins left SE Jul 19 '19 at 23:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DerekElkins How is it a valid formula if one of its terms is not defined? In any interpretation of a valid formula, don't each of its terms need to be assigned to a member of the chosen universe? $\endgroup$ – coffeemath Jul 20 '19 at 3:15
3
$\begingroup$

In set-theoretic foundations, the statement is false. The problem is the distinction between logical functions and set-theoretic functions. If $f$ is a (unary) logical function (i.e. a function symbol in our theory), then $f(x)$ is always defined.1 To this end, your question wouldn't make sense. However, it is clear that you intend a set-theoretic function (at least assuming you are using a set-theoretic foundation) and so a function is a set, i.e. an individual of set theory. To this end, $f(x)$ is not a term at all, instead the formula $f(x)=y$ is shorthand for $(x,y)\in f$. Your formula: $f(b)<\varepsilon$ expands to $\exists y.(b,y)\in f\land y<\varepsilon$ which is simply false when $b\notin A$.

1 There are some logics that have an inherent notion of a not fully defined function, but those are non-standard.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I am (luckily) somewhat familiar with the set theoretic notion of a function, although I haven't had much practice with it (if $f$ maps $A$ into $B$ then $f$ is a subset of $A \times B$, is it not?). I like the general direction of this answer quite a bit. Here is a similar but different question. If $f: A\to B$ is a map then $f^{-1}(f(C)) \supseteq C$ in general for $C \subseteq A$. I would like to prove that this holds with equality (that $f^{-1}(f(C)) \supseteq C$) in the case $C=A$. Let $x\in f^{-1}(f(C))$. Certainly, $f(x) \in f(C)$. (continued) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Winckelman Jul 20 '19 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ My first thought was to use contraposition and try to prove that $x \not\in A \implies f(x) \not\in f(A)$. But then I got stuck on the meaning of $f(x) \in f(A)$ when $x$ is not an element of the domain of $f$. With your answer though, would the meaning be as follows? : $x \not\in A \implies (x,b) \not \in A \times B$ for any possible element $b\in B$ of any set. In other words, if $f(A)$ is the set $f$ (which I’m not 100% sure of), then $ f(x) \not\in f(A)$. Is that the idea? $\endgroup$ – Thomas Winckelman Jul 20 '19 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ (oops, I mean to sat $f^{-1}(f(C) \subseteq C$ in the case $C = A$, sorry) $\endgroup$ – Thomas Winckelman Jul 20 '19 at 0:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Using the contrapositive here is not particularly necessary here, and I would generally recommend avoiding indirect proofs when possible, but anyway, your formula "really means" $x\notin A\implies\exists y.(x,y)\in f\land y\notin f(A)$. Taking instead $f(x)\in f(A)\implies x\in A$ to prove this really just involves taking the $\exists y.(x,y)\in f$ part and using the fact that, by definition, $f\subseteq A\times B$ which means $(z,w)\in f\implies z\in A\land w\in B$, from which $x\in A$ immediately follows. $\endgroup$ – Derek Elkins left SE Jul 20 '19 at 11:16
  • $\begingroup$ An excellent answer. You managed whether by coincidence or by wisdom to address the root of my problem. Thank you $\endgroup$ – Thomas Winckelman Jul 20 '19 at 14:57

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.