How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?All real functions are continuous$frac(x-1)(x+1) (x+1) rightarrow (x-1)$ Domain ChangeAre functions still continuous even with removable discontinuities?Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?Computability, Continuity and ConstructivismContinuity, removable and essential discontinuityContinuous function with a non-removable discontinuityremovable discontinuityA function that has both removable and jump discontinuity.Removable Discontinuity vs. Vertical Asymptote with denominator not in domainHow do we define the domain of a function with removable and nonremovable discontinuities?Are functions still continuous even with removable discontinuities?Can removable discontinuities be ignored while integrating?Derivative in removable discontinuity with change of variablesWhy the function has removable discontinuity

Stateful vs non-stateful app

Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?

What is the point of Germany's 299 "party seats" in the Bundestag?

Stop and Take a Breath!

Toggle Overlays shortcut?

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

Where did the extra Pym particles come from in Endgame?

Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?

Options leqno, reqno for documentclass or exist another option?

Why didn't this hurt this character as badly?

Does jamais mean always or never in this context?

Are Boeing 737-800’s grounded?

Bayes Nash Equilibria in Battle of Sexes

Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank

Why does processed meat contain preservatives, while canned fish needs not?

Mysql fixing root password

Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

Reverse the word in a string with the same order in javascript

Counterexample: a pair of linearly ordered sets that are isomorphic to subsets of the other, but not isomorphic between them

Pawn Sacrifice Justification

How to determine the actual or "true" resolution of a digital photograph?

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?



How can a function with a hole (removable discontinuity) equal a function with no hole?


All real functions are continuous$frac(x-1)(x+1) (x+1) rightarrow (x-1)$ Domain ChangeAre functions still continuous even with removable discontinuities?Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?Computability, Continuity and ConstructivismContinuity, removable and essential discontinuityContinuous function with a non-removable discontinuityremovable discontinuityA function that has both removable and jump discontinuity.Removable Discontinuity vs. Vertical Asymptote with denominator not in domainHow do we define the domain of a function with removable and nonremovable discontinuities?Are functions still continuous even with removable discontinuities?Can removable discontinuities be ignored while integrating?Derivative in removable discontinuity with change of variablesWhy the function has removable discontinuity













27












$begingroup$


I've done some research, and I'm hoping someone can check me. My question was this:



Assume I have the function $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$, so it has removable discontinuity at $x = 3$. We remove that discontinuity with algebra: $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = (x+2)$. BUT, the graph of the first function has a hole at $x = 3$, and the graph of the second function is continuous everywhere. How can they be "equal" if one has a hole and the other does not?



I think that this is the answer:



Because the original function is undefined at the point $x = 3$, we have to restrict the domain to $mathbbR setminus 3$. And when we manipulate that function with algebra, the final result, $f(x) = (x + 2)$ is still using this restricted domain. So even though the function $f(x) = (x+2)$ would not have a hole if the domain were all of $mathbbR$, we are sort of "imposing" a hole at $x = 3$ by continuing to throw that point out of the domain.



And then just to close the loop: Removing the removable discontinuity is useful because it allows us to "pretend" that we're working with a function that is everywhere continuous, which helps us easily find the limit. But the reality is that the function $f(x) = (x +2)$ is actually NOT continuous everywhere when we restrict the domain by throwing out the point 3. Or am I now taking things too far?



Thanks in advance!



EDIT: For anyone coming across this in the future, in addition to the excellent answers below, I also found this other question about the continuity of functions with removable discontinuities helpful.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
    $endgroup$
    – Joppy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 27 at 7:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
    Mar 27 at 7:45















27












$begingroup$


I've done some research, and I'm hoping someone can check me. My question was this:



Assume I have the function $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$, so it has removable discontinuity at $x = 3$. We remove that discontinuity with algebra: $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = (x+2)$. BUT, the graph of the first function has a hole at $x = 3$, and the graph of the second function is continuous everywhere. How can they be "equal" if one has a hole and the other does not?



I think that this is the answer:



Because the original function is undefined at the point $x = 3$, we have to restrict the domain to $mathbbR setminus 3$. And when we manipulate that function with algebra, the final result, $f(x) = (x + 2)$ is still using this restricted domain. So even though the function $f(x) = (x+2)$ would not have a hole if the domain were all of $mathbbR$, we are sort of "imposing" a hole at $x = 3$ by continuing to throw that point out of the domain.



And then just to close the loop: Removing the removable discontinuity is useful because it allows us to "pretend" that we're working with a function that is everywhere continuous, which helps us easily find the limit. But the reality is that the function $f(x) = (x +2)$ is actually NOT continuous everywhere when we restrict the domain by throwing out the point 3. Or am I now taking things too far?



Thanks in advance!



EDIT: For anyone coming across this in the future, in addition to the excellent answers below, I also found this other question about the continuity of functions with removable discontinuities helpful.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
    $endgroup$
    – Joppy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 27 at 7:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
    Mar 27 at 7:45













27












27








27


5



$begingroup$


I've done some research, and I'm hoping someone can check me. My question was this:



Assume I have the function $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$, so it has removable discontinuity at $x = 3$. We remove that discontinuity with algebra: $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = (x+2)$. BUT, the graph of the first function has a hole at $x = 3$, and the graph of the second function is continuous everywhere. How can they be "equal" if one has a hole and the other does not?



I think that this is the answer:



Because the original function is undefined at the point $x = 3$, we have to restrict the domain to $mathbbR setminus 3$. And when we manipulate that function with algebra, the final result, $f(x) = (x + 2)$ is still using this restricted domain. So even though the function $f(x) = (x+2)$ would not have a hole if the domain were all of $mathbbR$, we are sort of "imposing" a hole at $x = 3$ by continuing to throw that point out of the domain.



And then just to close the loop: Removing the removable discontinuity is useful because it allows us to "pretend" that we're working with a function that is everywhere continuous, which helps us easily find the limit. But the reality is that the function $f(x) = (x +2)$ is actually NOT continuous everywhere when we restrict the domain by throwing out the point 3. Or am I now taking things too far?



Thanks in advance!



EDIT: For anyone coming across this in the future, in addition to the excellent answers below, I also found this other question about the continuity of functions with removable discontinuities helpful.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I've done some research, and I'm hoping someone can check me. My question was this:



Assume I have the function $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$, so it has removable discontinuity at $x = 3$. We remove that discontinuity with algebra: $f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = (x+2)$. BUT, the graph of the first function has a hole at $x = 3$, and the graph of the second function is continuous everywhere. How can they be "equal" if one has a hole and the other does not?



I think that this is the answer:



Because the original function is undefined at the point $x = 3$, we have to restrict the domain to $mathbbR setminus 3$. And when we manipulate that function with algebra, the final result, $f(x) = (x + 2)$ is still using this restricted domain. So even though the function $f(x) = (x+2)$ would not have a hole if the domain were all of $mathbbR$, we are sort of "imposing" a hole at $x = 3$ by continuing to throw that point out of the domain.



And then just to close the loop: Removing the removable discontinuity is useful because it allows us to "pretend" that we're working with a function that is everywhere continuous, which helps us easily find the limit. But the reality is that the function $f(x) = (x +2)$ is actually NOT continuous everywhere when we restrict the domain by throwing out the point 3. Or am I now taking things too far?



Thanks in advance!



EDIT: For anyone coming across this in the future, in addition to the excellent answers below, I also found this other question about the continuity of functions with removable discontinuities helpful.







calculus limits discontinuous-functions faq






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 27 at 13:25









YuiTo Cheng

2,86341140




2,86341140










asked Mar 27 at 7:07









1Teaches2Learn1Teaches2Learn

18028




18028







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
    $endgroup$
    – Joppy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 27 at 7:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
    Mar 27 at 7:45












  • 7




    $begingroup$
    You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
    $endgroup$
    – Joppy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 27 at 7:18







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 27 at 7:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:32






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
    $endgroup$
    – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
    Mar 27 at 7:45







7




7




$begingroup$
You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
$endgroup$
– Joppy
Mar 27 at 7:18





$begingroup$
You have two functions $g: mathbbR to mathbbR$, and $f: mathbbR setminus 3 to mathbbR$, which are equal on all of $mathbbR setminus 3$. The functions are not equal, since they have different domains. Actually both are continuous, but you have to pay attention to what "continuous" means on $mathbbR setminus 3$. And yes, removing holes will not change how the function behaves, or how integrals involving the function work for example, and make things simpler
$endgroup$
– Joppy
Mar 27 at 7:18





1




1




$begingroup$
$x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 27 at 7:18





$begingroup$
$x+2$ is continuous on $mathbb R setminus 3$.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 27 at 7:18





2




2




$begingroup$
Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Mar 27 at 7:28




$begingroup$
Yes you are right. In fact these two functions are equal on a common domain which is $Bbb R-3$ but in $x=3$, $f(x)$ is not defined while $x+2$ is, so they can't be equal
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Mar 27 at 7:28




1




1




$begingroup$
Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
$endgroup$
– 1Teaches2Learn
Mar 27 at 7:32




$begingroup$
Thank you all so much. Each of these comments added to my understanding. I learned all this as "cookbook" stuff years ago--just enough to follow the steps and get an A, not really caring to "understand" back then. I guess this has always been a "hole" in my knowledge. Pun intended :P
$endgroup$
– 1Teaches2Learn
Mar 27 at 7:32




1




1




$begingroup$
Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
$endgroup$
– Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
Mar 27 at 7:45




$begingroup$
Continuity is a local phenomenon. A function is continuous or discontinous w.r.t a point, not the whole domain, though we can speak of continuity in the whole domain.
$endgroup$
– Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost
Mar 27 at 7:45










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















41












$begingroup$

Two functions are typically defined to be equal if and only if they...



  • Share the same domain

  • Share the same codomain

  • Take on the same values for each input.

Thus, functions $f,g : S to T$ for sets $S,T$ have $f=g$ if and only if $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $S$.



For functions with holes, we typically restrict the domain by ensuring the values where the function is not defined at not included. For example, in the functions you have, you have



$$f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) ;;;;; g(x) = x+2$$



Are these equal? Yes, and no.



A function must be defined at all values of the domain. Thus, we can say $3$ is not in the domain of $f$ for sure. But we never specified otherwise the domains and codomains of these functions! Typically, unless stated otherwise, we often assume their domain to be $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$, minus whatever points are causing problems - and of course, in such cases, $f neq g$ since $f(3)$ is not defined, and thus $f$ normally has domain $Bbb R setminus 3$ and $g$ generally has domain $Bbb R$.



But that restriction is not necessary. For example, we could define the functions to be $f,g : Bbb R setminus Bbb Q to Bbb R$. Notice that the domain of both functions are now all real numbers except rational numbers, i.e. the irrational numbers. This means $3$ is not in the domain of either function - and since that's the only "trouble spot," and the codomains are equal, and the values are equal at each point in the domain, $f=g$ here.



Or even more simply: we could have $Bbb R setminus 3$ be the domain of $f$ and $g$ and again have equality! The key point in all this is that, just because $f$ or $g$ do attain defined values for certain inputs, doesn't mean they have to be in the domain.




In short, whether $f=g$ depends on your definitions of each. Under typical assumptions, $f neq g$ in this case, but if we deviate from those assumptions even a little we don't necessarily have inequality.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:47






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
    $endgroup$
    – Federico Poloni
    Mar 27 at 19:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
    $endgroup$
    – Eevee Trainer
    Mar 27 at 22:29










  • $begingroup$
    @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
    $endgroup$
    – Markus Scheuer
    Mar 28 at 6:48











  • $begingroup$
    @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
    $endgroup$
    – Federico Poloni
    Mar 28 at 7:20



















13












$begingroup$

You are almost correct there!



The domain of the function matters, so for your example we have



$$f:mathbb Rsetminus3rightarrowmathbb R,~f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3.$$



You can think of it this way: we don't know yet if we have a removable discontinuity at $x=3$ and there might be a reason why we got this $(x-3)$ in the denominator, so we must exclude $3$ from our domain. Now our function $f$ is obviously continuous on its domain (it is a rational function and we know things about rational functions), and as we have excluded $3$ from our domain there is no point in asking if $f$ is continuous in $x=3$ (simply because it doesn't even exist there). Even when we simplify
$$f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2$$
we still have the same domain because the domain does not change depending on our manipulations.



Now when it comes to asking wether we have a removable discontinuity we are actually asking the following: do we find a continuous function $g$ such that
$$g:mathbb Rrightarrowmathbb R,~g(x)=begincases f(x),&xneq 3 \ c, &x=3 endcases$$
So $g(x)=f(x)$ for all $xinmathbb Rsetminus3$ (which is the domain of $f$) and for $x=3$ we are looking for a value to assign to $g(3)$ such that this "new function" $g$ is continuous. So because the domains of $f$ and $g$ are not equal the functions themselves are not equal, but for most purposes e.g. integration we can treat them as equal to make things easier. One example:



we want to calculate $intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx$. We then first have to discuss what we actually mean by that, as $f$ is not defined on $(-5,2)$ and after that we have an improper integral to solve, maybe split it up into two integrals...



Luckily one can show that in this case where we had a (single) removable discontinuity the following holds:



$$intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx=intlimits_-5^2!g(x),mathrmdx.$$



(This result can be extended e.g. it doesn't matter is we have a finite amount of removable discontinuities or $f(x)neq g(x)$ for only finitely many $x$)



So working with $g$ makes this integration much easier which is why one often chooses to get rid of removable discontinuities and work with the new function $g$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:46










  • $begingroup$
    Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    Mar 27 at 12:30


















9












$begingroup$

As others have noted, the functions are equal on $Bbb Rsetminus3$, and $(x+2)$ is easier to work with in almost any respect. Yes, using $=$ in this case is an abuse of notation, but it's really common, and more or less universally accepted as a necessary evil.



However, there is a different perspective where $=$ is more correct, and that's if you see them not as functions, but as rational functions ("function" shouldn't be in this name, to be honest). In other words, as just fractions of abstract / formal polynomials, without worrying about any evaluation or function properties. Then they actually are equal, the same way $frac62$ and $3$ are equal.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
    $endgroup$
    – 1Teaches2Learn
    Mar 27 at 7:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Mar 27 at 7:51







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    Mar 27 at 12:40










  • $begingroup$
    $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Mar 28 at 15:47










  • $begingroup$
    @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Mar 28 at 15:51



















1












$begingroup$

They are equal as rational functions.



Both $$frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3quadtextandquad x+2$$may be considered to be elements of the field $mathbb Q(x)$ of "rational functons over $mathbb Q$", and the two represent the same element of that field. So, when doing calculations in $mathbb Q(x)$, it is, indeed, correct to write
$$
frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    Related Questions & Answers at MSE , with some emphasis on Constructivism :




    • Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?


    • Computability, Continuity and Constructivism


    • All real functions are continuous





    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      0












      $begingroup$

      You're assuming that f(x) is not defined at x=3 because f(3) produces 0/0, and because this expression is ordinarily undefined then you're assuming that f(3) is undefined. But if you can rationally give a definition to this expression then we're on solid ground. A rational value can be given to this expression in this case by using l'Hôpital's rule, and so f(3) is defined.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
        $endgroup$
        – Ethan Bolker
        Apr 4 at 2:50










      • $begingroup$
        Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
        $endgroup$
        – jimalton
        Apr 5 at 4:01



















      -1












      $begingroup$

      One seldom writes the domain of a function, implicitly assigning the largest domain that is sensible in your context. For much algebra (especially graphing), trigonometry, and calculus, the largest domain of interest is the real numbers, $mathbbR$, and the (implicit) maximal domains of functions are subsets of $mathbbR$.



      Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, range, and values on each point of the domain. (The range is a subset of the codomain. No one cares if you expand the codomain.) So $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ is not equal to $x + 2$ because they do not have the same domain: $mathbbR smallsetminus 3 neq mathbbR$.



      Two functions are identical if they have the same values on each point of their common domain. The common domain of $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ and $x + 2$ is $(mathbbR smallsetminus 3) cap mathbbR = mathbbR smallsetminus 3$. Both functions agree on this common domain, so they are identical. "At any point you can evaluate both functions, they give the same answer, so there is no point of the common domain that can, through evaluation, show that the two functions are different." Two unequal identical functions are unequal "before you get to evaluations" -- that is, they are unequal in their domains or ranges.



      A more extreme example: $log x$ has domain $(0, infty)$ and $log( -x)$ has domain $(-infty, 0)$. These two functions are not equal; they do not have the same domain. Because the intersection of their domains is empty, their common domain is empty and they are (vacuously) identical. (Here, "vacuously" means "there is literally nothing to check because the common domain has nothing in it, like a vacuum".)



      When proving identities, we only use this weaker notion of equivalence of functions.



      Regarding continuity: "$f$ is continuous" means that $f$ is continuous on each point of its domain. If you delete a point from its domain, you have relaxed the conditions imposed by continuity. "$f$ is continuous at the point $x$" means
      $$ lim_t rightarrow x f(t) = f(x) $$
      (where the indicated limit must exist). In considering the limit, $t$ is restricted to only take values in the domain of the function.



      (Most people don't talk about continuity of functions at isolated points of their domains. With the above definition, a function is continuous at any isolated point of its domain because the limit becomes vacuous: there are no points in the domain near the isolated point except for the isolated point, so there is nothing to check. It is not the case that the limit fails to exist. In a rigorous setting, you would define continuity as "for all $varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta$ such that for all $t$ such that $|x-t| < delta$, we have $|f(x) - f(t)| < varepsilon$". For an isolated point, once $delta$ is small enough, the only choice for $t$ is $t = x$, and we have $|f(x) - f(t)| = 0$, which is definitely less than $varepsilon$.)



      Continuous functions are nice. For instance, you likely have a theorem that says continuous functions are (Riemann) integrable (on non-infinite intervals of integration). If you have a function that has a removable discontinuity, then it is identical (but not equal) to a continuous function whose domain includes the ordinate (first coordinate) of the removable discontinuity. Any value you can get from the first function, you can also get from the second function. This means any particular Riemann sum (that is, any particular choice of partition and sample points) that can be evaluated using the discontinuous function has the same value as the same sum using the identical, continuous function. Riemann sums that sampled the removable discontinuity did not exist, so prevented the existence of the limit as the diameter of the partition went to zero. The identical function sidesteps this problem by supplying the limit of the function as it approaches the removable discontinuity, so the Riemann sum using the "filled in" function exists and you can integrate it. (Normally, one talks about an improper integral, splitting the interval of integration into pieces that avoid little intervals around the points of discontinuity, then taking limits as the little intervals shrink to zero. If the discontinuity is removable, one can show that these two methods of sneaking up on the removable discontinuities give the same result.)






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$








      • 3




        $begingroup$
        Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
        $endgroup$
        – Matt Samuel
        Mar 28 at 0:09











      • $begingroup$
        @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
        $endgroup$
        – Eric Towers
        Mar 28 at 0:10






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
        $endgroup$
        – Matt Samuel
        Mar 28 at 0:14










      • $begingroup$
        @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
        $endgroup$
        – Eric Towers
        Mar 28 at 0:19












      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3164182%2fhow-can-a-function-with-a-hole-removable-discontinuity-equal-a-function-with-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      41












      $begingroup$

      Two functions are typically defined to be equal if and only if they...



      • Share the same domain

      • Share the same codomain

      • Take on the same values for each input.

      Thus, functions $f,g : S to T$ for sets $S,T$ have $f=g$ if and only if $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $S$.



      For functions with holes, we typically restrict the domain by ensuring the values where the function is not defined at not included. For example, in the functions you have, you have



      $$f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) ;;;;; g(x) = x+2$$



      Are these equal? Yes, and no.



      A function must be defined at all values of the domain. Thus, we can say $3$ is not in the domain of $f$ for sure. But we never specified otherwise the domains and codomains of these functions! Typically, unless stated otherwise, we often assume their domain to be $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$, minus whatever points are causing problems - and of course, in such cases, $f neq g$ since $f(3)$ is not defined, and thus $f$ normally has domain $Bbb R setminus 3$ and $g$ generally has domain $Bbb R$.



      But that restriction is not necessary. For example, we could define the functions to be $f,g : Bbb R setminus Bbb Q to Bbb R$. Notice that the domain of both functions are now all real numbers except rational numbers, i.e. the irrational numbers. This means $3$ is not in the domain of either function - and since that's the only "trouble spot," and the codomains are equal, and the values are equal at each point in the domain, $f=g$ here.



      Or even more simply: we could have $Bbb R setminus 3$ be the domain of $f$ and $g$ and again have equality! The key point in all this is that, just because $f$ or $g$ do attain defined values for certain inputs, doesn't mean they have to be in the domain.




      In short, whether $f=g$ depends on your definitions of each. Under typical assumptions, $f neq g$ in this case, but if we deviate from those assumptions even a little we don't necessarily have inequality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 27 at 19:52






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 27 at 22:29










      • $begingroup$
        @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
        $endgroup$
        – Markus Scheuer
        Mar 28 at 6:48











      • $begingroup$
        @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 28 at 7:20
















      41












      $begingroup$

      Two functions are typically defined to be equal if and only if they...



      • Share the same domain

      • Share the same codomain

      • Take on the same values for each input.

      Thus, functions $f,g : S to T$ for sets $S,T$ have $f=g$ if and only if $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $S$.



      For functions with holes, we typically restrict the domain by ensuring the values where the function is not defined at not included. For example, in the functions you have, you have



      $$f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) ;;;;; g(x) = x+2$$



      Are these equal? Yes, and no.



      A function must be defined at all values of the domain. Thus, we can say $3$ is not in the domain of $f$ for sure. But we never specified otherwise the domains and codomains of these functions! Typically, unless stated otherwise, we often assume their domain to be $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$, minus whatever points are causing problems - and of course, in such cases, $f neq g$ since $f(3)$ is not defined, and thus $f$ normally has domain $Bbb R setminus 3$ and $g$ generally has domain $Bbb R$.



      But that restriction is not necessary. For example, we could define the functions to be $f,g : Bbb R setminus Bbb Q to Bbb R$. Notice that the domain of both functions are now all real numbers except rational numbers, i.e. the irrational numbers. This means $3$ is not in the domain of either function - and since that's the only "trouble spot," and the codomains are equal, and the values are equal at each point in the domain, $f=g$ here.



      Or even more simply: we could have $Bbb R setminus 3$ be the domain of $f$ and $g$ and again have equality! The key point in all this is that, just because $f$ or $g$ do attain defined values for certain inputs, doesn't mean they have to be in the domain.




      In short, whether $f=g$ depends on your definitions of each. Under typical assumptions, $f neq g$ in this case, but if we deviate from those assumptions even a little we don't necessarily have inequality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 27 at 19:52






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 27 at 22:29










      • $begingroup$
        @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
        $endgroup$
        – Markus Scheuer
        Mar 28 at 6:48











      • $begingroup$
        @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 28 at 7:20














      41












      41








      41





      $begingroup$

      Two functions are typically defined to be equal if and only if they...



      • Share the same domain

      • Share the same codomain

      • Take on the same values for each input.

      Thus, functions $f,g : S to T$ for sets $S,T$ have $f=g$ if and only if $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $S$.



      For functions with holes, we typically restrict the domain by ensuring the values where the function is not defined at not included. For example, in the functions you have, you have



      $$f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) ;;;;; g(x) = x+2$$



      Are these equal? Yes, and no.



      A function must be defined at all values of the domain. Thus, we can say $3$ is not in the domain of $f$ for sure. But we never specified otherwise the domains and codomains of these functions! Typically, unless stated otherwise, we often assume their domain to be $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$, minus whatever points are causing problems - and of course, in such cases, $f neq g$ since $f(3)$ is not defined, and thus $f$ normally has domain $Bbb R setminus 3$ and $g$ generally has domain $Bbb R$.



      But that restriction is not necessary. For example, we could define the functions to be $f,g : Bbb R setminus Bbb Q to Bbb R$. Notice that the domain of both functions are now all real numbers except rational numbers, i.e. the irrational numbers. This means $3$ is not in the domain of either function - and since that's the only "trouble spot," and the codomains are equal, and the values are equal at each point in the domain, $f=g$ here.



      Or even more simply: we could have $Bbb R setminus 3$ be the domain of $f$ and $g$ and again have equality! The key point in all this is that, just because $f$ or $g$ do attain defined values for certain inputs, doesn't mean they have to be in the domain.




      In short, whether $f=g$ depends on your definitions of each. Under typical assumptions, $f neq g$ in this case, but if we deviate from those assumptions even a little we don't necessarily have inequality.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      Two functions are typically defined to be equal if and only if they...



      • Share the same domain

      • Share the same codomain

      • Take on the same values for each input.

      Thus, functions $f,g : S to T$ for sets $S,T$ have $f=g$ if and only if $f(x) = g(x)$ for all $x$ in $S$.



      For functions with holes, we typically restrict the domain by ensuring the values where the function is not defined at not included. For example, in the functions you have, you have



      $$f(x) = frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) ;;;;; g(x) = x+2$$



      Are these equal? Yes, and no.



      A function must be defined at all values of the domain. Thus, we can say $3$ is not in the domain of $f$ for sure. But we never specified otherwise the domains and codomains of these functions! Typically, unless stated otherwise, we often assume their domain to be $Bbb R$ or $Bbb C$, minus whatever points are causing problems - and of course, in such cases, $f neq g$ since $f(3)$ is not defined, and thus $f$ normally has domain $Bbb R setminus 3$ and $g$ generally has domain $Bbb R$.



      But that restriction is not necessary. For example, we could define the functions to be $f,g : Bbb R setminus Bbb Q to Bbb R$. Notice that the domain of both functions are now all real numbers except rational numbers, i.e. the irrational numbers. This means $3$ is not in the domain of either function - and since that's the only "trouble spot," and the codomains are equal, and the values are equal at each point in the domain, $f=g$ here.



      Or even more simply: we could have $Bbb R setminus 3$ be the domain of $f$ and $g$ and again have equality! The key point in all this is that, just because $f$ or $g$ do attain defined values for certain inputs, doesn't mean they have to be in the domain.




      In short, whether $f=g$ depends on your definitions of each. Under typical assumptions, $f neq g$ in this case, but if we deviate from those assumptions even a little we don't necessarily have inequality.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Mar 27 at 7:46

























      answered Mar 27 at 7:33









      Eevee TrainerEevee Trainer

      10.6k31944




      10.6k31944











      • $begingroup$
        I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 27 at 19:52






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 27 at 22:29










      • $begingroup$
        @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
        $endgroup$
        – Markus Scheuer
        Mar 28 at 6:48











      • $begingroup$
        @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 28 at 7:20

















      • $begingroup$
        I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 27 at 19:52






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
        $endgroup$
        – Eevee Trainer
        Mar 27 at 22:29










      • $begingroup$
        @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
        $endgroup$
        – Markus Scheuer
        Mar 28 at 6:48











      • $begingroup$
        @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
        $endgroup$
        – Federico Poloni
        Mar 28 at 7:20
















      $begingroup$
      I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:47




      $begingroup$
      I greatly appreciate this answer. The definition of function equality is very helpful.
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:47




      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
      $endgroup$
      – Federico Poloni
      Mar 27 at 19:52




      $begingroup$
      Does the usual definition include sharing the codomain? I would happily define $f: mathbbRtomathbbR,, f:xmapsto x^2$ and $f: mathbbRtomathbbC,, f:xmapsto x^2$ to be the same function.
      $endgroup$
      – Federico Poloni
      Mar 27 at 19:52




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 27 at 22:29




      $begingroup$
      In my experience, yes, sharing the codomain is necessary. But much like altering the domain, you can easily manipulate the definition of the codomain (provided each $f(x)$ is in fact in the codomain).
      $endgroup$
      – Eevee Trainer
      Mar 27 at 22:29












      $begingroup$
      @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
      $endgroup$
      – Markus Scheuer
      Mar 28 at 6:48





      $begingroup$
      @FedericoPoloni: The difference in the codomain is essential. This might become plausible when you consider $mathbbC^mathbbR=g:mathbbRto mathbbC$, the set of all functions from $mathbbR$ to $mathbbC$. If you consider the functions as points in this space there are many more points near $f$. This implies you can for instance approximate $f$ by complex-valued functions which is not possible in $mathbbR^mathbbR$.
      $endgroup$
      – Markus Scheuer
      Mar 28 at 6:48













      $begingroup$
      @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
      $endgroup$
      – Federico Poloni
      Mar 28 at 7:20





      $begingroup$
      @MarkusScheuer I'm not too convinced by this example. Isn't this like arguing that the point 1 inside $[0,1]$ is different from the point 1 inside $mathbbR$?
      $endgroup$
      – Federico Poloni
      Mar 28 at 7:20












      13












      $begingroup$

      You are almost correct there!



      The domain of the function matters, so for your example we have



      $$f:mathbb Rsetminus3rightarrowmathbb R,~f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3.$$



      You can think of it this way: we don't know yet if we have a removable discontinuity at $x=3$ and there might be a reason why we got this $(x-3)$ in the denominator, so we must exclude $3$ from our domain. Now our function $f$ is obviously continuous on its domain (it is a rational function and we know things about rational functions), and as we have excluded $3$ from our domain there is no point in asking if $f$ is continuous in $x=3$ (simply because it doesn't even exist there). Even when we simplify
      $$f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2$$
      we still have the same domain because the domain does not change depending on our manipulations.



      Now when it comes to asking wether we have a removable discontinuity we are actually asking the following: do we find a continuous function $g$ such that
      $$g:mathbb Rrightarrowmathbb R,~g(x)=begincases f(x),&xneq 3 \ c, &x=3 endcases$$
      So $g(x)=f(x)$ for all $xinmathbb Rsetminus3$ (which is the domain of $f$) and for $x=3$ we are looking for a value to assign to $g(3)$ such that this "new function" $g$ is continuous. So because the domains of $f$ and $g$ are not equal the functions themselves are not equal, but for most purposes e.g. integration we can treat them as equal to make things easier. One example:



      we want to calculate $intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx$. We then first have to discuss what we actually mean by that, as $f$ is not defined on $(-5,2)$ and after that we have an improper integral to solve, maybe split it up into two integrals...



      Luckily one can show that in this case where we had a (single) removable discontinuity the following holds:



      $$intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx=intlimits_-5^2!g(x),mathrmdx.$$



      (This result can be extended e.g. it doesn't matter is we have a finite amount of removable discontinuities or $f(x)neq g(x)$ for only finitely many $x$)



      So working with $g$ makes this integration much easier which is why one often chooses to get rid of removable discontinuities and work with the new function $g$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:46










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:30















      13












      $begingroup$

      You are almost correct there!



      The domain of the function matters, so for your example we have



      $$f:mathbb Rsetminus3rightarrowmathbb R,~f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3.$$



      You can think of it this way: we don't know yet if we have a removable discontinuity at $x=3$ and there might be a reason why we got this $(x-3)$ in the denominator, so we must exclude $3$ from our domain. Now our function $f$ is obviously continuous on its domain (it is a rational function and we know things about rational functions), and as we have excluded $3$ from our domain there is no point in asking if $f$ is continuous in $x=3$ (simply because it doesn't even exist there). Even when we simplify
      $$f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2$$
      we still have the same domain because the domain does not change depending on our manipulations.



      Now when it comes to asking wether we have a removable discontinuity we are actually asking the following: do we find a continuous function $g$ such that
      $$g:mathbb Rrightarrowmathbb R,~g(x)=begincases f(x),&xneq 3 \ c, &x=3 endcases$$
      So $g(x)=f(x)$ for all $xinmathbb Rsetminus3$ (which is the domain of $f$) and for $x=3$ we are looking for a value to assign to $g(3)$ such that this "new function" $g$ is continuous. So because the domains of $f$ and $g$ are not equal the functions themselves are not equal, but for most purposes e.g. integration we can treat them as equal to make things easier. One example:



      we want to calculate $intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx$. We then first have to discuss what we actually mean by that, as $f$ is not defined on $(-5,2)$ and after that we have an improper integral to solve, maybe split it up into two integrals...



      Luckily one can show that in this case where we had a (single) removable discontinuity the following holds:



      $$intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx=intlimits_-5^2!g(x),mathrmdx.$$



      (This result can be extended e.g. it doesn't matter is we have a finite amount of removable discontinuities or $f(x)neq g(x)$ for only finitely many $x$)



      So working with $g$ makes this integration much easier which is why one often chooses to get rid of removable discontinuities and work with the new function $g$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:46










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:30













      13












      13








      13





      $begingroup$

      You are almost correct there!



      The domain of the function matters, so for your example we have



      $$f:mathbb Rsetminus3rightarrowmathbb R,~f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3.$$



      You can think of it this way: we don't know yet if we have a removable discontinuity at $x=3$ and there might be a reason why we got this $(x-3)$ in the denominator, so we must exclude $3$ from our domain. Now our function $f$ is obviously continuous on its domain (it is a rational function and we know things about rational functions), and as we have excluded $3$ from our domain there is no point in asking if $f$ is continuous in $x=3$ (simply because it doesn't even exist there). Even when we simplify
      $$f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2$$
      we still have the same domain because the domain does not change depending on our manipulations.



      Now when it comes to asking wether we have a removable discontinuity we are actually asking the following: do we find a continuous function $g$ such that
      $$g:mathbb Rrightarrowmathbb R,~g(x)=begincases f(x),&xneq 3 \ c, &x=3 endcases$$
      So $g(x)=f(x)$ for all $xinmathbb Rsetminus3$ (which is the domain of $f$) and for $x=3$ we are looking for a value to assign to $g(3)$ such that this "new function" $g$ is continuous. So because the domains of $f$ and $g$ are not equal the functions themselves are not equal, but for most purposes e.g. integration we can treat them as equal to make things easier. One example:



      we want to calculate $intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx$. We then first have to discuss what we actually mean by that, as $f$ is not defined on $(-5,2)$ and after that we have an improper integral to solve, maybe split it up into two integrals...



      Luckily one can show that in this case where we had a (single) removable discontinuity the following holds:



      $$intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx=intlimits_-5^2!g(x),mathrmdx.$$



      (This result can be extended e.g. it doesn't matter is we have a finite amount of removable discontinuities or $f(x)neq g(x)$ for only finitely many $x$)



      So working with $g$ makes this integration much easier which is why one often chooses to get rid of removable discontinuities and work with the new function $g$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      You are almost correct there!



      The domain of the function matters, so for your example we have



      $$f:mathbb Rsetminus3rightarrowmathbb R,~f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3.$$



      You can think of it this way: we don't know yet if we have a removable discontinuity at $x=3$ and there might be a reason why we got this $(x-3)$ in the denominator, so we must exclude $3$ from our domain. Now our function $f$ is obviously continuous on its domain (it is a rational function and we know things about rational functions), and as we have excluded $3$ from our domain there is no point in asking if $f$ is continuous in $x=3$ (simply because it doesn't even exist there). Even when we simplify
      $$f(x)=frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2$$
      we still have the same domain because the domain does not change depending on our manipulations.



      Now when it comes to asking wether we have a removable discontinuity we are actually asking the following: do we find a continuous function $g$ such that
      $$g:mathbb Rrightarrowmathbb R,~g(x)=begincases f(x),&xneq 3 \ c, &x=3 endcases$$
      So $g(x)=f(x)$ for all $xinmathbb Rsetminus3$ (which is the domain of $f$) and for $x=3$ we are looking for a value to assign to $g(3)$ such that this "new function" $g$ is continuous. So because the domains of $f$ and $g$ are not equal the functions themselves are not equal, but for most purposes e.g. integration we can treat them as equal to make things easier. One example:



      we want to calculate $intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx$. We then first have to discuss what we actually mean by that, as $f$ is not defined on $(-5,2)$ and after that we have an improper integral to solve, maybe split it up into two integrals...



      Luckily one can show that in this case where we had a (single) removable discontinuity the following holds:



      $$intlimits_-5^2!f(x),mathrmdx=intlimits_-5^2!g(x),mathrmdx.$$



      (This result can be extended e.g. it doesn't matter is we have a finite amount of removable discontinuities or $f(x)neq g(x)$ for only finitely many $x$)



      So working with $g$ makes this integration much easier which is why one often chooses to get rid of removable discontinuities and work with the new function $g$.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Mar 27 at 7:33









      HirshyHirshy

      4,40821441




      4,40821441







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:46










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:30












      • 1




        $begingroup$
        Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:46










      • $begingroup$
        Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:30







      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:46




      $begingroup$
      Really just a phenomenal answer. Thank you so much!
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:46












      $begingroup$
      Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
      $endgroup$
      – user21820
      Mar 27 at 12:30




      $begingroup$
      Perhaps you should clarify that your integral is not the standard Riemann integral, which cannot tolerate even a single undefined point. Other than that, good answer!
      $endgroup$
      – user21820
      Mar 27 at 12:30











      9












      $begingroup$

      As others have noted, the functions are equal on $Bbb Rsetminus3$, and $(x+2)$ is easier to work with in almost any respect. Yes, using $=$ in this case is an abuse of notation, but it's really common, and more or less universally accepted as a necessary evil.



      However, there is a different perspective where $=$ is more correct, and that's if you see them not as functions, but as rational functions ("function" shouldn't be in this name, to be honest). In other words, as just fractions of abstract / formal polynomials, without worrying about any evaluation or function properties. Then they actually are equal, the same way $frac62$ and $3$ are equal.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 27 at 7:51







      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:40










      • $begingroup$
        $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
        $endgroup$
        – Acccumulation
        Mar 28 at 15:47










      • $begingroup$
        @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 28 at 15:51
















      9












      $begingroup$

      As others have noted, the functions are equal on $Bbb Rsetminus3$, and $(x+2)$ is easier to work with in almost any respect. Yes, using $=$ in this case is an abuse of notation, but it's really common, and more or less universally accepted as a necessary evil.



      However, there is a different perspective where $=$ is more correct, and that's if you see them not as functions, but as rational functions ("function" shouldn't be in this name, to be honest). In other words, as just fractions of abstract / formal polynomials, without worrying about any evaluation or function properties. Then they actually are equal, the same way $frac62$ and $3$ are equal.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$








      • 1




        $begingroup$
        This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 27 at 7:51







      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:40










      • $begingroup$
        $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
        $endgroup$
        – Acccumulation
        Mar 28 at 15:47










      • $begingroup$
        @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 28 at 15:51














      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      As others have noted, the functions are equal on $Bbb Rsetminus3$, and $(x+2)$ is easier to work with in almost any respect. Yes, using $=$ in this case is an abuse of notation, but it's really common, and more or less universally accepted as a necessary evil.



      However, there is a different perspective where $=$ is more correct, and that's if you see them not as functions, but as rational functions ("function" shouldn't be in this name, to be honest). In other words, as just fractions of abstract / formal polynomials, without worrying about any evaluation or function properties. Then they actually are equal, the same way $frac62$ and $3$ are equal.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      As others have noted, the functions are equal on $Bbb Rsetminus3$, and $(x+2)$ is easier to work with in almost any respect. Yes, using $=$ in this case is an abuse of notation, but it's really common, and more or less universally accepted as a necessary evil.



      However, there is a different perspective where $=$ is more correct, and that's if you see them not as functions, but as rational functions ("function" shouldn't be in this name, to be honest). In other words, as just fractions of abstract / formal polynomials, without worrying about any evaluation or function properties. Then they actually are equal, the same way $frac62$ and $3$ are equal.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Mar 27 at 7:58

























      answered Mar 27 at 7:38









      ArthurArthur

      123k7122211




      123k7122211







      • 1




        $begingroup$
        This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 27 at 7:51







      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:40










      • $begingroup$
        $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
        $endgroup$
        – Acccumulation
        Mar 28 at 15:47










      • $begingroup$
        @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 28 at 15:51













      • 1




        $begingroup$
        This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
        $endgroup$
        – 1Teaches2Learn
        Mar 27 at 7:47






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 27 at 7:51







      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
        $endgroup$
        – user21820
        Mar 27 at 12:40










      • $begingroup$
        $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
        $endgroup$
        – Acccumulation
        Mar 28 at 15:47










      • $begingroup$
        @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
        $endgroup$
        – Arthur
        Mar 28 at 15:51








      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:47




      $begingroup$
      This is an interesting perspective. I'm going to have to do more research into rational functions. Thanks for the lead.
      $endgroup$
      – 1Teaches2Learn
      Mar 27 at 7:47




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Mar 27 at 7:51





      $begingroup$
      @1Teaches2Learn The field is called "Commutative algebra", and some keywords are "polynomial rings" and "ring of fractions". However, it is usually considered graduate level, so most material is going to be written accordingly.
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Mar 27 at 7:51





      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – user21820
      Mar 27 at 12:40




      $begingroup$
      @1Teaches2Learn: Rational functions are just what you get by treating polynomials as finite tuples encoding their coefficients, and considering 'fractions' of these polynomials, with two fractions $A/B$ and $C/D$ equivalent iff $A·D = B·C$. You get a field if you use polynomials over a field and forbid the denominator from being zero. Only if you wish to evaluate a rational function at some input, then you have to check that the denominator evaluated on the input is nonzero.
      $endgroup$
      – user21820
      Mar 27 at 12:40












      $begingroup$
      $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
      $endgroup$
      – Acccumulation
      Mar 28 at 15:47




      $begingroup$
      $f_1=f_2$ is an abuse of notation, but $f_1(x)=f_2(x)$ is not. The former asserts that the functions are equal, while the latter asserts that the evaluations of the functions are equal. This gets into the fact that $f(x)$ is often referred to as a "function", when in fact $f$ is the function; $f(x)$ is the value of the function.
      $endgroup$
      – Acccumulation
      Mar 28 at 15:47












      $begingroup$
      @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Mar 28 at 15:51





      $begingroup$
      @Acccumulation But it's difficult to make that distinction when you don't have abstract function names, but rather the actual functional expressions to work with. That's what this question is mainly about as I see it: Not about the difference between $f_1(x) = f_2(x)$ versus $f_1 = f_2$, but about the exact same difference between $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$ versus (for lack of better notation) $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3) = x-2$.
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Mar 28 at 15:51












      1












      $begingroup$

      They are equal as rational functions.



      Both $$frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3quadtextandquad x+2$$may be considered to be elements of the field $mathbb Q(x)$ of "rational functons over $mathbb Q$", and the two represent the same element of that field. So, when doing calculations in $mathbb Q(x)$, it is, indeed, correct to write
      $$
      frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2
      $$






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        They are equal as rational functions.



        Both $$frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3quadtextandquad x+2$$may be considered to be elements of the field $mathbb Q(x)$ of "rational functons over $mathbb Q$", and the two represent the same element of that field. So, when doing calculations in $mathbb Q(x)$, it is, indeed, correct to write
        $$
        frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2
        $$






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          They are equal as rational functions.



          Both $$frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3quadtextandquad x+2$$may be considered to be elements of the field $mathbb Q(x)$ of "rational functons over $mathbb Q$", and the two represent the same element of that field. So, when doing calculations in $mathbb Q(x)$, it is, indeed, correct to write
          $$
          frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          They are equal as rational functions.



          Both $$frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3quadtextandquad x+2$$may be considered to be elements of the field $mathbb Q(x)$ of "rational functons over $mathbb Q$", and the two represent the same element of that field. So, when doing calculations in $mathbb Q(x)$, it is, indeed, correct to write
          $$
          frac(x-3)(x+2)x-3=x+2
          $$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 27 at 23:34









          GEdgarGEdgar

          63.8k269177




          63.8k269177





















              0












              $begingroup$

              Related Questions & Answers at MSE , with some emphasis on Constructivism :




              • Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?


              • Computability, Continuity and Constructivism


              • All real functions are continuous





              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                Related Questions & Answers at MSE , with some emphasis on Constructivism :




                • Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?


                • Computability, Continuity and Constructivism


                • All real functions are continuous





                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Related Questions & Answers at MSE , with some emphasis on Constructivism :




                  • Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?


                  • Computability, Continuity and Constructivism


                  • All real functions are continuous





                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Related Questions & Answers at MSE , with some emphasis on Constructivism :




                  • Is any real-valued function in physics somehow continuous?


                  • Computability, Continuity and Constructivism


                  • All real functions are continuous






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 3 at 14:05









                  Han de BruijnHan de Bruijn

                  12.6k22361




                  12.6k22361





















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      You're assuming that f(x) is not defined at x=3 because f(3) produces 0/0, and because this expression is ordinarily undefined then you're assuming that f(3) is undefined. But if you can rationally give a definition to this expression then we're on solid ground. A rational value can be given to this expression in this case by using l'Hôpital's rule, and so f(3) is defined.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Ethan Bolker
                        Apr 4 at 2:50










                      • $begingroup$
                        Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                        $endgroup$
                        – jimalton
                        Apr 5 at 4:01
















                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      You're assuming that f(x) is not defined at x=3 because f(3) produces 0/0, and because this expression is ordinarily undefined then you're assuming that f(3) is undefined. But if you can rationally give a definition to this expression then we're on solid ground. A rational value can be given to this expression in this case by using l'Hôpital's rule, and so f(3) is defined.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$












                      • $begingroup$
                        There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Ethan Bolker
                        Apr 4 at 2:50










                      • $begingroup$
                        Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                        $endgroup$
                        – jimalton
                        Apr 5 at 4:01














                      0












                      0








                      0





                      $begingroup$

                      You're assuming that f(x) is not defined at x=3 because f(3) produces 0/0, and because this expression is ordinarily undefined then you're assuming that f(3) is undefined. But if you can rationally give a definition to this expression then we're on solid ground. A rational value can be given to this expression in this case by using l'Hôpital's rule, and so f(3) is defined.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      You're assuming that f(x) is not defined at x=3 because f(3) produces 0/0, and because this expression is ordinarily undefined then you're assuming that f(3) is undefined. But if you can rationally give a definition to this expression then we're on solid ground. A rational value can be given to this expression in this case by using l'Hôpital's rule, and so f(3) is defined.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Apr 4 at 2:45









                      jimaltonjimalton

                      222




                      222











                      • $begingroup$
                        There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Ethan Bolker
                        Apr 4 at 2:50










                      • $begingroup$
                        Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                        $endgroup$
                        – jimalton
                        Apr 5 at 4:01

















                      • $begingroup$
                        There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Ethan Bolker
                        Apr 4 at 2:50










                      • $begingroup$
                        Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                        $endgroup$
                        – jimalton
                        Apr 5 at 4:01
















                      $begingroup$
                      There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ethan Bolker
                      Apr 4 at 2:50




                      $begingroup$
                      There are several correct answers to this subtle question. Yours is not. Please read them. What you have observed is that it's easy to change the function slightly to make it continuous (by increasing the domain). And L'Hopital has nothing to do with the construction.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Ethan Bolker
                      Apr 4 at 2:50












                      $begingroup$
                      Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                      $endgroup$
                      – jimalton
                      Apr 5 at 4:01





                      $begingroup$
                      Sir - I don't know how your factually incorrect comment was allowed to be displayed, possibly confusing and misinforming others. First you say I'm wrong but give no explanation. Then you say I'm changing the function, which I'm not (by this comment you seem to misunderstand l'Hopital's rule). Then you imply that the continuity of the function at x=3, completing its domain, is not at the core of what has been previously discussed! Be honest - are you a social scientist?
                      $endgroup$
                      – jimalton
                      Apr 5 at 4:01












                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      One seldom writes the domain of a function, implicitly assigning the largest domain that is sensible in your context. For much algebra (especially graphing), trigonometry, and calculus, the largest domain of interest is the real numbers, $mathbbR$, and the (implicit) maximal domains of functions are subsets of $mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, range, and values on each point of the domain. (The range is a subset of the codomain. No one cares if you expand the codomain.) So $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ is not equal to $x + 2$ because they do not have the same domain: $mathbbR smallsetminus 3 neq mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are identical if they have the same values on each point of their common domain. The common domain of $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ and $x + 2$ is $(mathbbR smallsetminus 3) cap mathbbR = mathbbR smallsetminus 3$. Both functions agree on this common domain, so they are identical. "At any point you can evaluate both functions, they give the same answer, so there is no point of the common domain that can, through evaluation, show that the two functions are different." Two unequal identical functions are unequal "before you get to evaluations" -- that is, they are unequal in their domains or ranges.



                      A more extreme example: $log x$ has domain $(0, infty)$ and $log( -x)$ has domain $(-infty, 0)$. These two functions are not equal; they do not have the same domain. Because the intersection of their domains is empty, their common domain is empty and they are (vacuously) identical. (Here, "vacuously" means "there is literally nothing to check because the common domain has nothing in it, like a vacuum".)



                      When proving identities, we only use this weaker notion of equivalence of functions.



                      Regarding continuity: "$f$ is continuous" means that $f$ is continuous on each point of its domain. If you delete a point from its domain, you have relaxed the conditions imposed by continuity. "$f$ is continuous at the point $x$" means
                      $$ lim_t rightarrow x f(t) = f(x) $$
                      (where the indicated limit must exist). In considering the limit, $t$ is restricted to only take values in the domain of the function.



                      (Most people don't talk about continuity of functions at isolated points of their domains. With the above definition, a function is continuous at any isolated point of its domain because the limit becomes vacuous: there are no points in the domain near the isolated point except for the isolated point, so there is nothing to check. It is not the case that the limit fails to exist. In a rigorous setting, you would define continuity as "for all $varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta$ such that for all $t$ such that $|x-t| < delta$, we have $|f(x) - f(t)| < varepsilon$". For an isolated point, once $delta$ is small enough, the only choice for $t$ is $t = x$, and we have $|f(x) - f(t)| = 0$, which is definitely less than $varepsilon$.)



                      Continuous functions are nice. For instance, you likely have a theorem that says continuous functions are (Riemann) integrable (on non-infinite intervals of integration). If you have a function that has a removable discontinuity, then it is identical (but not equal) to a continuous function whose domain includes the ordinate (first coordinate) of the removable discontinuity. Any value you can get from the first function, you can also get from the second function. This means any particular Riemann sum (that is, any particular choice of partition and sample points) that can be evaluated using the discontinuous function has the same value as the same sum using the identical, continuous function. Riemann sums that sampled the removable discontinuity did not exist, so prevented the existence of the limit as the diameter of the partition went to zero. The identical function sidesteps this problem by supplying the limit of the function as it approaches the removable discontinuity, so the Riemann sum using the "filled in" function exists and you can integrate it. (Normally, one talks about an improper integral, splitting the interval of integration into pieces that avoid little intervals around the points of discontinuity, then taking limits as the little intervals shrink to zero. If the discontinuity is removable, one can show that these two methods of sneaking up on the removable discontinuities give the same result.)






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 3




                        $begingroup$
                        Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:09











                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:10






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:14










                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:19
















                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      One seldom writes the domain of a function, implicitly assigning the largest domain that is sensible in your context. For much algebra (especially graphing), trigonometry, and calculus, the largest domain of interest is the real numbers, $mathbbR$, and the (implicit) maximal domains of functions are subsets of $mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, range, and values on each point of the domain. (The range is a subset of the codomain. No one cares if you expand the codomain.) So $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ is not equal to $x + 2$ because they do not have the same domain: $mathbbR smallsetminus 3 neq mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are identical if they have the same values on each point of their common domain. The common domain of $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ and $x + 2$ is $(mathbbR smallsetminus 3) cap mathbbR = mathbbR smallsetminus 3$. Both functions agree on this common domain, so they are identical. "At any point you can evaluate both functions, they give the same answer, so there is no point of the common domain that can, through evaluation, show that the two functions are different." Two unequal identical functions are unequal "before you get to evaluations" -- that is, they are unequal in their domains or ranges.



                      A more extreme example: $log x$ has domain $(0, infty)$ and $log( -x)$ has domain $(-infty, 0)$. These two functions are not equal; they do not have the same domain. Because the intersection of their domains is empty, their common domain is empty and they are (vacuously) identical. (Here, "vacuously" means "there is literally nothing to check because the common domain has nothing in it, like a vacuum".)



                      When proving identities, we only use this weaker notion of equivalence of functions.



                      Regarding continuity: "$f$ is continuous" means that $f$ is continuous on each point of its domain. If you delete a point from its domain, you have relaxed the conditions imposed by continuity. "$f$ is continuous at the point $x$" means
                      $$ lim_t rightarrow x f(t) = f(x) $$
                      (where the indicated limit must exist). In considering the limit, $t$ is restricted to only take values in the domain of the function.



                      (Most people don't talk about continuity of functions at isolated points of their domains. With the above definition, a function is continuous at any isolated point of its domain because the limit becomes vacuous: there are no points in the domain near the isolated point except for the isolated point, so there is nothing to check. It is not the case that the limit fails to exist. In a rigorous setting, you would define continuity as "for all $varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta$ such that for all $t$ such that $|x-t| < delta$, we have $|f(x) - f(t)| < varepsilon$". For an isolated point, once $delta$ is small enough, the only choice for $t$ is $t = x$, and we have $|f(x) - f(t)| = 0$, which is definitely less than $varepsilon$.)



                      Continuous functions are nice. For instance, you likely have a theorem that says continuous functions are (Riemann) integrable (on non-infinite intervals of integration). If you have a function that has a removable discontinuity, then it is identical (but not equal) to a continuous function whose domain includes the ordinate (first coordinate) of the removable discontinuity. Any value you can get from the first function, you can also get from the second function. This means any particular Riemann sum (that is, any particular choice of partition and sample points) that can be evaluated using the discontinuous function has the same value as the same sum using the identical, continuous function. Riemann sums that sampled the removable discontinuity did not exist, so prevented the existence of the limit as the diameter of the partition went to zero. The identical function sidesteps this problem by supplying the limit of the function as it approaches the removable discontinuity, so the Riemann sum using the "filled in" function exists and you can integrate it. (Normally, one talks about an improper integral, splitting the interval of integration into pieces that avoid little intervals around the points of discontinuity, then taking limits as the little intervals shrink to zero. If the discontinuity is removable, one can show that these two methods of sneaking up on the removable discontinuities give the same result.)






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$








                      • 3




                        $begingroup$
                        Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:09











                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:10






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:14










                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:19














                      -1












                      -1








                      -1





                      $begingroup$

                      One seldom writes the domain of a function, implicitly assigning the largest domain that is sensible in your context. For much algebra (especially graphing), trigonometry, and calculus, the largest domain of interest is the real numbers, $mathbbR$, and the (implicit) maximal domains of functions are subsets of $mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, range, and values on each point of the domain. (The range is a subset of the codomain. No one cares if you expand the codomain.) So $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ is not equal to $x + 2$ because they do not have the same domain: $mathbbR smallsetminus 3 neq mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are identical if they have the same values on each point of their common domain. The common domain of $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ and $x + 2$ is $(mathbbR smallsetminus 3) cap mathbbR = mathbbR smallsetminus 3$. Both functions agree on this common domain, so they are identical. "At any point you can evaluate both functions, they give the same answer, so there is no point of the common domain that can, through evaluation, show that the two functions are different." Two unequal identical functions are unequal "before you get to evaluations" -- that is, they are unequal in their domains or ranges.



                      A more extreme example: $log x$ has domain $(0, infty)$ and $log( -x)$ has domain $(-infty, 0)$. These two functions are not equal; they do not have the same domain. Because the intersection of their domains is empty, their common domain is empty and they are (vacuously) identical. (Here, "vacuously" means "there is literally nothing to check because the common domain has nothing in it, like a vacuum".)



                      When proving identities, we only use this weaker notion of equivalence of functions.



                      Regarding continuity: "$f$ is continuous" means that $f$ is continuous on each point of its domain. If you delete a point from its domain, you have relaxed the conditions imposed by continuity. "$f$ is continuous at the point $x$" means
                      $$ lim_t rightarrow x f(t) = f(x) $$
                      (where the indicated limit must exist). In considering the limit, $t$ is restricted to only take values in the domain of the function.



                      (Most people don't talk about continuity of functions at isolated points of their domains. With the above definition, a function is continuous at any isolated point of its domain because the limit becomes vacuous: there are no points in the domain near the isolated point except for the isolated point, so there is nothing to check. It is not the case that the limit fails to exist. In a rigorous setting, you would define continuity as "for all $varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta$ such that for all $t$ such that $|x-t| < delta$, we have $|f(x) - f(t)| < varepsilon$". For an isolated point, once $delta$ is small enough, the only choice for $t$ is $t = x$, and we have $|f(x) - f(t)| = 0$, which is definitely less than $varepsilon$.)



                      Continuous functions are nice. For instance, you likely have a theorem that says continuous functions are (Riemann) integrable (on non-infinite intervals of integration). If you have a function that has a removable discontinuity, then it is identical (but not equal) to a continuous function whose domain includes the ordinate (first coordinate) of the removable discontinuity. Any value you can get from the first function, you can also get from the second function. This means any particular Riemann sum (that is, any particular choice of partition and sample points) that can be evaluated using the discontinuous function has the same value as the same sum using the identical, continuous function. Riemann sums that sampled the removable discontinuity did not exist, so prevented the existence of the limit as the diameter of the partition went to zero. The identical function sidesteps this problem by supplying the limit of the function as it approaches the removable discontinuity, so the Riemann sum using the "filled in" function exists and you can integrate it. (Normally, one talks about an improper integral, splitting the interval of integration into pieces that avoid little intervals around the points of discontinuity, then taking limits as the little intervals shrink to zero. If the discontinuity is removable, one can show that these two methods of sneaking up on the removable discontinuities give the same result.)






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      One seldom writes the domain of a function, implicitly assigning the largest domain that is sensible in your context. For much algebra (especially graphing), trigonometry, and calculus, the largest domain of interest is the real numbers, $mathbbR$, and the (implicit) maximal domains of functions are subsets of $mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, range, and values on each point of the domain. (The range is a subset of the codomain. No one cares if you expand the codomain.) So $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ is not equal to $x + 2$ because they do not have the same domain: $mathbbR smallsetminus 3 neq mathbbR$.



                      Two functions are identical if they have the same values on each point of their common domain. The common domain of $frac(x-3)(x+2)(x-3)$ and $x + 2$ is $(mathbbR smallsetminus 3) cap mathbbR = mathbbR smallsetminus 3$. Both functions agree on this common domain, so they are identical. "At any point you can evaluate both functions, they give the same answer, so there is no point of the common domain that can, through evaluation, show that the two functions are different." Two unequal identical functions are unequal "before you get to evaluations" -- that is, they are unequal in their domains or ranges.



                      A more extreme example: $log x$ has domain $(0, infty)$ and $log( -x)$ has domain $(-infty, 0)$. These two functions are not equal; they do not have the same domain. Because the intersection of their domains is empty, their common domain is empty and they are (vacuously) identical. (Here, "vacuously" means "there is literally nothing to check because the common domain has nothing in it, like a vacuum".)



                      When proving identities, we only use this weaker notion of equivalence of functions.



                      Regarding continuity: "$f$ is continuous" means that $f$ is continuous on each point of its domain. If you delete a point from its domain, you have relaxed the conditions imposed by continuity. "$f$ is continuous at the point $x$" means
                      $$ lim_t rightarrow x f(t) = f(x) $$
                      (where the indicated limit must exist). In considering the limit, $t$ is restricted to only take values in the domain of the function.



                      (Most people don't talk about continuity of functions at isolated points of their domains. With the above definition, a function is continuous at any isolated point of its domain because the limit becomes vacuous: there are no points in the domain near the isolated point except for the isolated point, so there is nothing to check. It is not the case that the limit fails to exist. In a rigorous setting, you would define continuity as "for all $varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $delta$ such that for all $t$ such that $|x-t| < delta$, we have $|f(x) - f(t)| < varepsilon$". For an isolated point, once $delta$ is small enough, the only choice for $t$ is $t = x$, and we have $|f(x) - f(t)| = 0$, which is definitely less than $varepsilon$.)



                      Continuous functions are nice. For instance, you likely have a theorem that says continuous functions are (Riemann) integrable (on non-infinite intervals of integration). If you have a function that has a removable discontinuity, then it is identical (but not equal) to a continuous function whose domain includes the ordinate (first coordinate) of the removable discontinuity. Any value you can get from the first function, you can also get from the second function. This means any particular Riemann sum (that is, any particular choice of partition and sample points) that can be evaluated using the discontinuous function has the same value as the same sum using the identical, continuous function. Riemann sums that sampled the removable discontinuity did not exist, so prevented the existence of the limit as the diameter of the partition went to zero. The identical function sidesteps this problem by supplying the limit of the function as it approaches the removable discontinuity, so the Riemann sum using the "filled in" function exists and you can integrate it. (Normally, one talks about an improper integral, splitting the interval of integration into pieces that avoid little intervals around the points of discontinuity, then taking limits as the little intervals shrink to zero. If the discontinuity is removable, one can show that these two methods of sneaking up on the removable discontinuities give the same result.)







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 27 at 23:07









                      Eric TowersEric Towers

                      34k22371




                      34k22371







                      • 3




                        $begingroup$
                        Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:09











                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:10






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:14










                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:19













                      • 3




                        $begingroup$
                        Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:09











                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:10






                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Matt Samuel
                        Mar 28 at 0:14










                      • $begingroup$
                        @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Eric Towers
                        Mar 28 at 0:19








                      3




                      3




                      $begingroup$
                      Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Matt Samuel
                      Mar 28 at 0:09





                      $begingroup$
                      Actually the codomain is part of the definition of the function, so it does matter. A surjective function fails to be surjective if you expand the codomain.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Matt Samuel
                      Mar 28 at 0:09













                      $begingroup$
                      @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Towers
                      Mar 28 at 0:10




                      $begingroup$
                      @MattSamuel : You have explained exactly why codomain is useless and is the wrong data for the definition of the function. All functions are surjective on their ranges.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Towers
                      Mar 28 at 0:10




                      2




                      2




                      $begingroup$
                      But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Matt Samuel
                      Mar 28 at 0:14




                      $begingroup$
                      But it sometimes matters whether a certain naturally defined function is surjective on its codomain. The codomain is not necessarily arbitrary. If you're taking about real valued functions of a real variable, sure, it doesn't matter very much. But even as soon as you get to complex analysis it matters. Certainly in higher math it matters a lot.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Matt Samuel
                      Mar 28 at 0:14












                      $begingroup$
                      @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Towers
                      Mar 28 at 0:19





                      $begingroup$
                      @MattSamuel : If I hand you a function modelled in the usual way (a set of of domain-image pairs), you cannot possibly know the codomain, unless you mark every element with its defining set, so that $1_mathbbZ neq 1_mathbbR$. All the model can provide is the range (union of images). Asserting a codomain is creating a fiction for which the function is an inadequate witness unless we force our elements to not satisfy natural inclusions.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Towers
                      Mar 28 at 0:19


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3164182%2fhow-can-a-function-with-a-hole-removable-discontinuity-equal-a-function-with-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029