Sit in on signal processing course to see how much of a joke engineering classes are

just because wiki concedes to engineers doesn't mean it's right to call it a function

just because wiki doesn't concede to shitposters doesn't mean it's wrong to call it a function

I want to see you define the Lebesgue measure on the whole powerset.

...

>sit in on quantum mechanics course to see how much of a joke physics classes are
>professor says Heisenberg's "uncertainty" "principle"

This, I haven't seen it in like 4-5 months now.

Just assume the axiom of determinacy, my nigger.

>Not just calling it the integral killer

>mathematicians don't know the set theoreticak definition of a function
This distinction is made for physicists/engineers who are acustumed to real valued functions, but it is a function you brainlet.

But it is a real-valued function. It's a function from the set of functions on the reals to the reals, and sends a function f to f(0).

You know what he meant

>>professor says Dirac Delta "function"
You know what he meant

>It's a function from the set of functions on the reals to the reals
Oh? What is the value of Dirac's delta at x=0?

>calling a distribution a function

are people really this stupid?

The domain are not real numbers you absolute imbecile.
So what is your definition of a function?

Ah I see we have an engineer masquerading as a mathematician here

This.

>sit in on signal processing course to see how much of a joke engineering classes are
Why are Math majors such losers? Who would actually do this in real life?

let me explain to you how this thread originally came about. Some engineering student takes his first signals course and his professor makes a casual disclaimer that it's not truly a function but they call it that anyway. This engineering student then decides to roleplay as an overly autistic maths student on Veeky Forums and posts this outrageous scenario

>be dirac
>callS it function

>be 2018
>OMF BRAINLET PROFFEAOR SAID DIRAC DELTA FUNCTION ENGINEERS R DUMB

Dirac was not a mathematician and thus his definitions lack rigour

So you don't know?

You have problems with people calling a function function?

Its not a function but its action can be uniformly approximated by the action of a sequence of smooth bump functions, which is all we ever want in the end anyways.

...

it makes sense once you realise the OP is never able to properly defend his insinuation that it's not a function

Yes exactly you dumb fucking brainlet but it’s literally called the Dirac delta function as a consequence, just like a hot dog isn’t actually a hot fucking dog rather it’s a cylindrical meat capsule that’s just what we traditionally call it which is my point

So it is unequivocally autistic to the max to get triggered when someone calls the DIRAC DELTA FUNCTION the DIRAC DELTA FUNCTION

...

A function has to mao from R to C. Distributions dont have to.

No, functions can map between any two sets, try again.
Your definition is so bad that functions can't even take complex arguments.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

No one cares tho pal

What thr fuck do americans learn at college akgebra? Naive set theory is brainlet tier, but it clears a lot of retardes notions.

What makes you think I'm an Amerifat?

That even my uni in the shithole that is my country has better standards than the amerifat curriculum.

Well I'm Australian not an Amerilard and I bet we have the best maths education in the world

Not knowing the proper definition of a function is pretty bad lad.

You're defining it in your own way; function is not a universally defined term

Nice shitpost m8.