See "fancu".

Comment #2: Re: Is a map not just a function?

Varik Valefor (Thu Jun 9 09:42:31 2022)

krtisfranks wrote: > See "fancu". The functions constitute a proper subset of the mappings. Nonequivalent are "fancu" and "smapiri".

Comment #3: Re: Is a map not just a function? Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 10 07:47:02 2022) varikvalefor wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > See "fancu". > > > The functions constitute a proper subset of the mappings. Nonequivalent > are "fancu" and "smapiri". How are you defining "mapping" then? :) Comment #4: Re: Is a map not just a function? Varik Valefor (Sun Jun 12 07:16:27 2022) krtisfranks wrote: > How are you defining "mapping" then? :) "Map" is used as a synonym of "morphism", which is roughly equivalent to "correspondence between objects of a class". However, "map" is a bit ambiguous", as the category theorists' use of "map" differs from the set theorists' use of "map". Using "morphism" instead of "map" is probably a good idea. Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity.