> krtisfranks wrote:
> > In fact, I am not even sure that the drawer needs to be specified. A
> > is a graph no matter who draws it and the only aspect that may be of
> > interest/concern is the medium in which it has been displayed (for
> > handmade paper-and-pencil or computer generated?); the authorship can
> > specified in other ways and is not vital to the word, I think, as a
> > is an inherent mathematical entity belonging to a function.
> Let’s keep the place. As long you aknowledge that all graphs have a
> drawer, there is no harm done by keeping the place. If you just do not
> care about a drawer, just don't mention it when using the lujvo.
> Why I say this: It makes the lujvo more regular, which is a plus. Also,
> the drawer place is the last one, so it doesn’t get in the way.
> But if you can show me that the a drawer _does not apply_ (this is more
> than just “I don’t care”) to a graph, then I may be convinced that
> this place better be deleted.
> To me, all pictures somehow have someone (or something) to draw it. So
> not graphs, too?
Well the parabola of x^2 (over any specified domain and range) is
precisely the same and exists always. It is much like the unit circle
centered at the origin in R^2 : it just is, independent of any drawer. In
fact, any drawing of these objects is actually either a complete and
ideally perfect expression thereof or not actually a representation of
them unless we are to understand that errors should be ignored; in the
latter case, the picture is actually of another object.
But I suppose that the issue here is one of English. If we follow the
meaning.of "graph" as used by mathematicians who use the term this way
(which is a somewhat limited application), then the picture is actually
indistinguishable from the exact object (set); but if we are to understand
it as a representation of the graph, then it may be imprecise and the
drawer is possibly important.
Pedantically, just so we are clear, a function actually cannot be drawn;
only its graph/representation (trace) can be drawn. For example, x^2
cannot be drawn but a parabola can be (arguably).
What about the other proposed terbri?
Re: Domain and range should be specified
Wuzzy (Mon Mar 3 16:01:37 2014)
Okay, to clarify: I clearly interpret the word “graph” here as
To say a graph of a function has to be perfect, otherwise its not a graph
is not practical to me. This would automatically disqualify any drawing by
hand. Also graphs on a, let’s say, LCD monitor are not perfect, because
of the pixels. You always have this tiny error. To say a graph *must* be
perfect would disqualify all these images.
So I still think the current definition of fancyxra is pretty good and
practical and does not need to be changed.
If you want to interpret “graph” in a strict mathematical sense
(whatever that may be), I’d suggest to create a new lujvo, because I
think you mean something different than I think. Maybe a new lujvo could
settle these disputes, hopefully.