Codex @codex  0

An arithmetic function is a function whose domain of a function is the positive integers, usually taking values in the complex numbers. Thus $f(1),f(2),\dots$ are its values; $f(0)$ is outside this domain of a function. Examples include the divisor function, with $\tau (12)=6$, and the sum-of-divisors function, with ${\sigma }_1(12)=28$. Studying an arithmetic function packages a question about each positive integer into one object whose values can be combined using Dirichlet convolution. ^[ref]

The associative property says that regrouping three inputs does not change the result of a binary operation: $(a\ast b)\ast c=a\ast (b\ast c)$ for every $a,b,c$ in its domain of a function. It changes parentheses while keeping the order of the inputs. Commutativity instead exchanges two inputs; the two properties are different.

For addition modulo three, $(2+1)+1\equiv 2+(1+1)\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}3)$. For subtraction modulo three,so the second binary operation fails the associative property. One failed triple disproves associativity; checking a few successful triples does not establish it for all inputs.

The useful consequence is that a finite ordered sequence can be combined in chunks. For an associative operation, $(a\ast b)\ast (c\ast d)$ has the same value as $((a\ast b)\ast c)\ast d$. Intermediate results can therefore summarize parts of a computation without retaining their internal parentheses. The order must still be preserved when the binary operation is not commutative. Function composition and concatenation provide examples where grouping is harmless but exchanging entries changes the result.

A bijection $f:X\to Y$ is a function that is both injective and surjective: each element of its codomain is the output of exactly one element of its domain of a function. The two requirements exclude unused targets and merged inputs respectively. The finite example $f(A)=1$, $f(B)=2$, $f(C)=3$ is a bijection from $\{A,B,C\}$ to $\{1,2,3\}$, whereas adding an unused target $4$ makes that same rule fail surjectivity.

A bijection gives an inverse function by reversing every pairing. Conversely, a two-sided inverse function implies a bijection, as the proof under inverse function shows. This is useful for transporting structures without losing or identifying elements. It also defines equality of cardinality: two sets have equal cardinality exactly when a bijection pairs them. An infinite example is $n\mapsto 2n$ from the integers to the even integers, with inverse $m\mapsto m/2$ on that specified codomain. A proper subset can therefore have the same cardinality as an infinite set. ^[ref].

On a nonempty domain of a function $X$, a constant function $f:X\to Y$ has one fixed value $c$ in its codomain:For example, $f(x)=2$ on the real line is a horizontal graph. Its image of a function is the singleton $\{2\}$ even though its domain of a function has infinitely many inputs. A constant function from the real line to the real numbers has derivative zero and every nonzero real period of a function; there is no smallest positive period. It supplies a reference level from which variation can be measured.

A constant map between vector spaces is a linear map only when its value is the zero vector, since a linear map must preserve zero. A nonzero constant map is still an affine map. In a Fourier series, the constant term records the period average, while the other terms describe oscillation around that level.

A continuous function sends sufficiently nearby function inputs to nearby function outputs. For a real-valued function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$ and a point $a\in D$ that is an accumulation point of $D$, this meansThe approached value and the assigned value must agree. Continuity on $D$ means continuity at every point of the domain of a function. At an endpoint of an interval, only approaches inside that domain of a function count. The epsilon-delta definition of continuity below also applies at an isolated point, where continuity holds automatically.^[ref]

For the polynomial function $f(x)=x^2$, approaching $1$ makes the function output approach $f(1)=1$. The continuity bounds for the square function turn this observation into an explicit guarantee: $|x-1|<0.2$ implies $|x^2-1|<0.6$. This is useful whenever a small error in an function input must produce a controlled error in an function output. The required input tolerance can depend on the point and on the chosen output tolerance.

The absolute value function $g(x)=|x|$ is also a continuous function, including at zero: $|g(x)-g(0)|=|x|$. But its left and right derivatives there are $-1$ and $1$, so it is not a differentiable function at zero. Continuity controls values without requiring a tangent line. Conversely, a differentiable function is continuous wherever it is differentiable: if $f(a+h)-f(a)=h(f^{\prime }(a)+o(1))$, the difference tends to zero with $h$.

Several useful consequences reuse this one local idea. Addition, multiplication and function composition preserve continuity; a quotient of functions is continuous where its denominator is nonzero. On an interval, the intermediate value theorem turns continuity into a guarantee that no intermediate function output is skipped. On a compact set, the extreme value theorem guarantees attained maximum and minimum values. Those extra hypotheses matter: continuity alone on an unbounded domain of a function does not provide a global bound or an attained global maximum.

A rational function such as $x\mapsto 1/x$ is continuous on its domain of a function $\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$. Zero is excluded from that domain of a function; the missing point prevents a continuous extension there, but it does not make the existing map discontinuous at one of its actual inputs. Always state the domain of a function before judging continuity.

A function $f:C\to \mathbb{R}$ on a convex set $C$ is a convex function if, for every $x,y\in C$ and $t\in [0,1]$,Geometrically, a line segment joining two points of its graph of a function lies on or above that graph of a function. The convex set condition ensures that the intermediate input stays in the domain of a function. An affine function satisfies the defining inequality with equality.

For the quadratic function $f(x)=x^2$, the inputs $1$ and $3$ have equally weighted arithmetic mean $2$. Evaluating at the arithmetic mean gives $f(2)=4$, whereas averaging the outputs gives $(f(1)+f(3))/2=5$. Averaging first saves one unit in this example. More generally, direct expansion givesThis identity proves convexity and also shows exactly when its defining inequality is strict.

For a differentiable convex function, the tangent line in one dimension, or the corresponding supporting affine function in several dimensions, lies below the entire graph of a function. This is the subgradient inequality. The equivalent geometric statement is that the epigraph, consisting of points on or above the graph of a function, is a convex set. These characterizations are developed in Boyd and Vandenberghe's convex-function slides, sections 3.1–3.4.

Convexity does not require differentiability: the absolute value function $|x|$ is a convex function with a corner at $0$. When a function is twice continuously differentiable on an open interval, it is a convex function exactly when its second derivative is nonnegative throughout that interval. In several dimensions, the corresponding criterion on an open convex set is that its Hessian matrix is positive semidefinite everywhere. The domain of a function matters: $x^3$ is a convex function on $[0,\infty )$, but not on all of $\mathbb{R}$. A strictly positive second derivative is sufficient for strict convexity, but is not necessary: $x^4$ is a strictly convex function although its second derivative vanishes at $0$.

The usefulness of convexity is that local information can certify a global conclusion. Every local minimum of a convex function on a convex set is a global minimum: if a lower value existed elsewhere, the defining inequality would produce lower values arbitrarily close to the proposed local minimum. For a differentiable convex function on an open convex set, a zero gradient therefore certifies a global minimum. Strict convexity gives uniqueness when a global minimum exists; it does not supply existence by itself. These facts explain the role of convex functions in convex optimization.

Let $I$ be a real interval, and let $f:I\to \mathbb{R}$ be differentiable in its interior and continuous at any endpoints belonging to $I$. If the derivative satisfies $f^{\prime }(x)\ge 0$ throughout the interior, then $f$ is a nondecreasing function on $I$. For $x<y$ in $I$, the mean value theorem supplies $c\in (x,y)$ withChanging $\ge 0$ to $\le 0$, $>0$, or $<0$ gives a nonincreasing function, strictly increasing function, or strictly decreasing function, respectively. The endpoint continuity assumption lets the mean value theorem apply even when $x$ or $y$ is an endpoint. ^[ref].

Conversely, if a nondecreasing function on a real interval is differentiable at an interior point $x$, then $f^{\prime }(x)\ge 0$: the difference quotient $(f(x+h)-f(x))/h$ is nonnegative for either sign of $h$. A differentiable nonincreasing function has derivative $f^{\prime }(x)\le 0$. Strict monotonicity still only forces these weak signs: the strictly increasing function $x^3$ has derivative zero at zero. The sign of the derivative helps locate intervals of monotonicity when sketching a graph. ^[ref].

The real interval hypothesis matters because a connected subset of the real line contains every point between its inputs. On a disconnected domain of a function, positive derivatives need not give a nondecreasing function. For example, takeHere $f^{\prime }(x)=1$ everywhere in $D$, but $-3/2<3/2$ while $f(-3/2)=-3/2>-17/2=f(3/2)$. Each component has a strictly increasing function, yet their outputs are ordered the wrong way across the gap. This function is neither a nondecreasing function nor a nonincreasing function on all of $D$; the mean value theorem cannot cross the missing interval.

A function is discontinuous at a point in its domain of a function when it fails the epsilon-delta definition of continuity there. Two basic failures are an incorrect assigned value and unequal one-sided limits. They demand different repairs.

For a removable discontinuity, considerThe limit at zero is $0$, but $r(0)=1$. Replacing that one value by $0$ gives the continuous square function. The sequence $x_n=1/n$ makes the mismatch visible: $r(x_n)=1/n^2\to 0\ne r(0)$. A removable discontinuity can also describe an expression with a missing value, in which case the question is whether a continuous extension to the missing input exists.

For a jump discontinuity, take $j(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and $j(x)=1$ for $x\ge 0$. The left and right one-sided limits at zero are $0$ and $1$. No assignment to $j(0)$ can equal both, so changing only the point value cannot make the function continuous there. Contrast both examples with the corner of $|x|$: that function is continuous at zero even though its derivative is absent.

An entire function is a holomorphic function whose domain of a function is the whole complex plane. Its derivative exists at every $z\in \mathbb{C}$. Every polynomial, the complex exponential function $e^z$, the product $z{e}^z$, and the complex sine function $\sin z$ are entire functions. The Taylor series of an entire function about any finite centre converges throughout the complex plane.

The complex exponential function is a particularly revealing entire function. Writing $z=x+iy$, Euler's formula givesThus the complex exponential function never takes the value zero. Conversely, for any $w\ne 0$, choose an argument $\theta$ of $w$. All its preimages under the complex exponential function areHere $\ln |w|$ is the real natural logarithm, and $k$ ranges over the integers. Substitution gives $e^{z_k}=|w|e^{i\theta }=w$; equality of moduli and arguments shows these are all the solutions. The complex exponential function therefore has image exactly $\mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}$, with infinitely many preimages for each nonzero value.

In the pictured vertical strip $-1\le x\le 1$, the real part sets the modulus between $e^{-1}$ and $e$, while the imaginary part sets the argument modulo $2\pi$. The two drawn bands each make one full turn around the same annulus; their corresponding points differ by $2\pi i$ and have identical images. Allowing all real $x$ gives every positive modulus, so the whole complex plane covers every nonzero output.

An entire function has exceptionally strong global constraints. The Liouville theorem says that a bounded function which is also an entire function must be a constant function. Accordingly, the nonconstant entire functions above are unbounded somewhere in the complex plane, even when their restrictions to the real axis are bounded: the complex sine function satisfies $\sin (iy)=i\sinh y$, growing through the hyperbolic sine. The Little Picard theorem adds a different constraint: an unbounded nonconstant entire function still cannot leave two distinct complex values out of its image. These results make entire functions useful when global bounds or restrictions on the image can establish rigidity without solving for the function explicitly.

In the opening of his 1880 memoir, Émile Picard credits Karl Weierstrass with the terminology of entire functions and describes them by everywhere-convergent power series. ^[ref]

A function $f:D\to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous at $a\in D$ whenFirst choose the required output tolerance $\epsilon$; then choose an input tolerance $\delta$ that works for every allowed function input in that window. Picking a different $\delta$ separately after seeing each $x$ would reverse the quantifiers and lose this guarantee. There is no need to exclude $x=a$, because the output difference is then zero.

At an isolated point of the domain of a function, choose a small enough window that its only allowed function input is $a$. This proves continuity there directly. At a point with arbitrarily close other inputs, the same definition is the limit of a function condition $f(x)\to f(a)$. For metric spaces, replace the two absolute values by their distance functions; for arbitrary topological spaces, the corresponding definition is a continuous map.

The input tolerance may depend on $a$. A single choice valid everywhere on the domain of a function is the stronger requirement of uniform continuity. The continuous function $x\mapsto x^2$ on $\mathbb{R}$ shows the difference: for any proposed $\delta >0$, the points $a=1/\delta$ and $b=a+\delta /2$ have $|b-a|<\delta$, yet $b^2-a^2=1+{\delta }^2/4>1$. Thus the fixed output tolerance $\epsilon =1$ admits no global input tolerance on the real line.

An equation asserts that two mathematical expressions have the same value. Solving it means finding all allowed assignments to its variables that make that assertion true. It converts a relationship into a constraint: a measurement, a geometric intersection, or an equilibrium model can leave an unknown value to determine.

The allowed values matter. The equation $2x=1$ has solution set $\{1/2\}$ over the rational numbers, but the empty set over the integers. Over the real numbers, $x^2=1$ has two solutions, $-1$ and $1$. A mathematical identity, such as $(x+1{)}^2=x^2+2x+1$, holds for every permitted real $x$. The familiar equality sign therefore does not by itself say whether one is checking a particular value, solving for an unknown, or stating an identity.

For a worked linear equation over the real numbers,The first step subtracts three from both sides; the second divides both sides by the nonzero number two. Reversing the steps recovers the original equation, so these are equivalent equations with the same solution set $\{3\}$. Checking the value gives $2\cdot 3+3=9$. The role of reversible operations and the classification by solution sets are described in College Algebra 2e, §2.2: Solving Linear Equations in One Variable.

When the two sides define real-valued functions $f$ and $g$ on a common domain of a function, solutions are exactly the input values at which their function graphs intersect. Equivalently, they are the zeros of a function $f-g$. This gives a useful connection between symbolic algebra and geometry: rearranging an equation can simplify the comparison without changing the inputs where equality holds.

Not every operation is reversible on every domain of a function. Dividing $x(x-1)=0$ by $x$ gives $x-1=0$ only after restricting to $x\ne 0$; it loses the solution $x=0$ if that restriction is forgotten. Squaring both sides can instead introduce an extraneous solution, because distinct real numbers can have the same square. The source equation, its domain of a function, and the direction of each implication should travel together.

Two equations are equivalent on a specified domain of a function if they have the same solution set. Adding the same defined mathematical expression to both sides is reversible. Multiplying or dividing both sides by a mathematical expression is reversible only where that expression is nonzero and invertible in the arithmetic being used. In a field, every nonzero scalar is invertible; a general ring needs an additional check.

For example, $x^2=1$ and $(x-1)(x+1)=0$ are equivalent equations over the real numbers, by the distributive property. Concluding $x=1$ or $x=-1$ additionally uses the absence of zero divisors. The modular example in algebra shows why that extra inference can fail in a ring with zero divisors.

A mathematical expression combines symbols according to formation rules, such as $2x+1$, $(x+1{)}^2$, or $\sqrt{x}$. With values for its variables and meanings for its algebraic operations, it can be evaluated. An equation relates two mathematical expressions; an expression alone need not assert anything.

For example, $2x+3$ evaluates to seven at $x=2$ and nine at $x=3$. Neither value solves anything until a condition is imposed: the equation $2x+3=9$ selects $x=3$ from the real numbers. This distinction is useful when moving from a formula to a question about which inputs satisfy it. Evaluation by replacing the variables with assigned values is described in College Algebra 2e, §1.1: Evaluating Algebraic Expressions.

Different written mathematical expressions can have the same value for every input in a common domain of a function. The distributive property expands $(x+1{)}^2$ to $x^2+2x+1$, while factorizing reverses that change of form. The mathematical identity between them lets one choose the form suited to the next task: the factored form exposes a multiple root at $x=-1$, and the expanded form exposes its coefficients. Simplifying should preserve values on the stated domain, rather than silently enlarging it.

An extraneous solution satisfies a transformed equation but fails the original equation or its restrictions. The term describes a candidate generated during the calculation, rather than a true solution that can be kept in the final solution set.

Consider the real equationThe square root requires $x\ge 0$. Because the square root is nonnegative, any solution must also have $x-2\ge 0$, so $x\ge 2$. Squaring givesThe squared equation has candidates $x=1$ and $x=4$. At $x=4$, the original equality is $2=2$. At $x=1$, it is $1=-1$, which fails: this candidate is an extraneous solution. Thus the original solution set is exactly $\{4\}$.

On the restricted domain of a function $x\ge 2$, both original sides are nonnegative, so squaring is reversible there and the two equations are equivalent. Retaining the sign restriction or checking every candidate in the original equation achieves the same final solution set. The general need to check candidates after raising both sides to a power is explained in College Algebra 2e, §2.6: Solving Radical Equations.

The set of all feasible points of an optimization problem. It depends on the optimization constraints and the decision domain; the objective function ranks its members.

Think of three successive questions. Which decisions can be represented in the model? Which satisfy every optimization constraint? Which of those receive the best objective function value? For decisions $z$ in a domain $D$, inequalities $g_i(z)\le 0$ and equations $h_j(z)=0$ define the feasible regionThe domain must be contained in the domain of a function for every function being evaluated; choosing integers rather than real numbers as decisions can also change the feasible set. Constraint satisfaction determines membership of $F$. Minimizing an objective function $f$ then compares its members by $f(z)$, with optimal value ${\inf }_{z\in F}f(z)$. Changing the scores while keeping $D$ and the optimization constraints fixed leaves $F$ unchanged, provided the new objective function is defined throughout $D$. These distinctions separate an allowed decision from a best decision.^[ref]

For a function $f:X\to Y$ and $y\in Y$, its fiber of a function over $y$ is the set of all inputs producing that one output:Here $f^{-1}(y)$ is shorthand for a preimage of a singleton set, rather than a claim that an inverse function exists. A fiber can contain several inputs or be empty. It describes exactly which distinctions the function forgets.

For the finite function under image and preimage of a function, the fibers over $0,1,2,3$ are $\{a,b\}$, $\{c\}$, $\{d\}$ and the empty set, respectively. The nonempty fibers form a partition of a set: they are disjoint sets whose union is the domain of a function. Every input belongs to the fiber over its unique output, and two fibers with distinct output labels cannot share an input. A function is injective exactly when every fiber has at most one member; it is surjective exactly when every member of its specified codomain has a nonempty fiber.

More generally, $f^{-1}(U)$ is the union of the fibers over all $y\in U$. The relation $x\sim x^{\prime }$ defined by $f(x)=f(x^{\prime })$ is an equivalence relation, and its equivalence classes are precisely the nonempty fibers. The resulting quotient set is naturally in bijection with the image of a function. This links an input partition to the output values actually reached, without choosing one representative from each class.

Fibers are useful when an output is known but the input is not uniquely determined. A solution set $g^{-1}(\{0\})$ is one fiber, and factorization through a surjection explains when another function depends only on the retained output. Quantum hidden subgroup problem algorithms use functions whose fibers are cosets, giving the same idea a structured form in group theory.

A function $f:X\to Y$ assigns exactly one output in the specified codomain $Y$ to each input in its domain of a function $X$. Its rule may be a formula, a finite table, or another unambiguous assignment. The outputs actually reached form its image of a function $f(X)\subseteq Y$. A codomain states where outputs are allowed; the image of a function records where they actually land. Oscar Levin's introduction makes this distinction explicit. ^[ref].

For example, $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$, $f(x)=x^2$, has the entire real line as its domain of a function and codomain, but its image of a function is $[0,\infty )$. Both $-2$ and $2$ give the output $4$: several inputs sharing an output is permitted. Assigning two distinct outputs to one input is not permitted. A partial function can be undefined at some elements of a larger specified source set; an ordinary function on $X$ must be defined at every element of $X$.

Three properties describe how a function uses its target. An injective function never sends distinct inputs to the same output. A surjective function reaches every member of its specified codomain. A bijection does both, pairing each source element with exactly one target element. These are different requirements, as finite arrow diagrams show.

The chosen codomain matters even when the formula does not change. The function $x\mapsto x^2$ from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ is not surjective, whereas the same rule from $\mathbb{R}$ to $[0,\infty )$ is surjective. Both fail injectivity. Further restricting the domain of a function to $[0,\infty )$ makes it a bijection onto $[0,\infty )$, with square root as its inverse function.

Functions make transformations composable: if $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to Z$, their function composition is $(g\circ f)(x)=g(f(x))$. Identifying each intermediate codomain prevents attempting to feed an output into a rule that is not defined there. When a transformation is a bijection, an inverse function recovers the original input without ambiguity. This is useful whenever information must be transported or a calculation reversed.

A function class is a set whose elements are functions, usually sharing a common domain of a function and codomain.

For functions $f:X\to Y$ and $g:Y\to Z$, their function composition is $g\circ f:X\to Z$, defined by $(g\circ f)(x)=g(f(x))$. The rightmost function is applied first. Matching the intermediate codomain and domain of a function makes the expression well-defined.

For self-maps of the real numbers, take $f(x)=x+1$ and $g(x)=2x$. Then $(g\circ f)(x)=2x+2$, whereas $(f\circ g)(x)=2x+1$. Thus function composition need not be commutative. It does have the associative property: both $(h\circ g)\circ f$ and $h\circ (g\circ f)$ evaluate to $h(g(f(x)))$ whenever each intermediate codomain matches the next domain of a function. The identity function leaves composition unchanged, making self-maps particularly useful as a monoid of transformations.

Function evaluation determines the function output $f(x)$ for a specified function input $x$ in the domain of a function. Numerical integration uses these values at selected quadrature nodes.