F(x)

f(x)

what is it

a symbol for a function: a relationship that assigns each input a single output

convention is to assume it's the identity function if f is not otherwise specified

why such a shitty bait?

y

not the correct notation, should be [math](x)f[/math]

>a symbol for a function
wrong

>f(x) is a function
physicist detected

Whatever you want it to be :3

Haha youre so right dude look at this cool function. A function can be anything right haha wow dude

>Post dumb math questions
>300+ replies because people are dumb.
It's "[math]f[/math] evaluated at [math]x[/math]"

Now everyone stop replying.

You aren't thinking deep enough my friend

f times x

>God tier
[math]fx[/math]
>acceptable tier
[math]f(x)[/math]
>oh shit nigger what are you doing
[math]f|_x[/math]

it is a function of y nigga

I see those s*t theory professors dun spooked you good.

What if I told you that it's possible for functions to have not just one, but anywhere between zero and infinitely many values for a given point in their domain?

the graphs, sure, not the functions themselves

Explain yourself.

He's just being a pedantic autist.

Technically f is the function and f(x) is the element obtained by f acting on x.

What if I told you, that you could represent those "many valued functions" as just regular functions to the powerset.

your pic can be a function if you think of it as the graph of a parametric curve

f(x) is the function 'x' applied to the set 'f'
obviously the domain is open wrt euclidean metric by use of ( and )

You forgot about ƒ: X → Y

>>God tier
>fx
>>acceptable tier
>f(x)
>>oh shit nigger what are you doing
>f|x
kek literally the opposite of the correct answer.

f|x is pure mathkino
f(x) is your everday notation
fx is not even correct lol

t. calc babby

in all of serious math you barely even consider elements, and composition of functions is usually written as 'multiplication'

>implying f(x) can't be a function
applied mathematician detected

>in all of serious math you barely even consider elements
what are analysis, diff geometry, complex analysis, and diff equations
be more retarded please

what if i told you that those "multi-valued" """"functions"""" were really just relations?

lmao the only real math disciplines are algebraic anything, the rest is literally garbage tier

>algebraic number theorists and algebraic geometers
>not caring about elements
way to out yourself as a brainlet

check this out

hom

oh cool so you don't know anything about modern algebraic research applied to number theory
thanks for the insight

lmao im a neet that has never gone to college, what the hell are you on about?

that much is clear

is right, you know

f(x) = f * x

your picture is a mapping of a relation: a function by definition is to have one y for every x.

Why is that important? I never understood the point of learning all the into, onto, bijective functions etc makes no sense

an element in the image of the function f, specifically one retrieved by evaluating f at x

f(x) is the function f evaluated at x.

because every idea in mathematics can be (and is) described as some mappings between suitable sets, it's a unifying and extremely convenient approach. a "volume" is a mapping sendind subsets of the euclidean plane to some non-negative number, a "derivative" is a mapping sending functions to new functions and so on.

t. engineer

Learn programming and you'll have a good idea

>Technically f is the function and f(x) is the element obtained by f acting on x
The element obtained by a force acting on a free variable?

Vertical line test mate.

>f(x) is a function of y

>graph
*image

If your set X are your "free variables" and Y are your "forces", then sure f(x) is the force, ie element of Y.

f(x) = (x^2,x)
you barely ever write in the arguments of functions in DEs, because it would get too messy.
on the other hand you see the "fx" formalism every time you have a linear operator acting on a function.
you don't write [math] \frac{\partial }{\partial x}(f) [/math], do you?

looks like a PNG to me m8