http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition
Basically, in g on the diagram on wikipedia 2 is mapped to #. But, what the hell?
Nothing gets mapped from X to 2. But, then something is mapped from 2 to #. Surely, this most break some mathematical rule or something, like dividing by zero.
Because it doesn't make sense in the ball in box analogy. Since a ball appears at 2 that is put in box #. But, nobody puts a ball in 2 because the balls at X isn't put in the box in 2.
This is totally destroying the ball in box analogy.
Surely, its undefined at 2 so shouldn't map to #. This is ball.
P.S. Also, isn't it a problem if two balls land in the same box? does that mean one ball is left behind.
P.P.S. All the three textbooks don't have this problem or don't explain what it means.
P.P.P.S. Does this mean I need to drop the ball in box analogy?

Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 25072009 18:16
Last edited by Simplicity; 25072009 at 18:19. 
Revision help in partnership with Birmingham City University

Totally Tom
 Follow
 1 follower
 16 badges
 Send a private message to Totally Tom
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 2
 25072009 18:51
(Original post by Simplicity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_composition
Basically, in g on the diagram on wikipedia 2 is mapped to #. But, what the hell?
Nothing gets mapped from X to 2. But, then something is mapped from 2 to #. Surely, this most break some mathematical rule or something, like dividing by zero.
Because it doesn't make sense in the ball in box analogy. Since a ball appears at 2 that is put in box #. But, nobody puts a ball in 2 because the balls at X isn't put in the box in 2.
This is totally destroying the ball in box analogy.
Surely, its undefined at 2 so shouldn't map to #. This is ball.
P.S. Also, isn't it a problem if two balls land in the same box? does that mean one ball is left behind.
P.P.S. All the three textbooks don't have this problem or don't explain what it means.
P.P.P.S. Does this mean I need to drop the ball in box analogy?
WHAT ARE YOU CRYING ABOUT? 
Drederick Tatum
 Follow
 0 followers
 12 badges
 Send a private message to Drederick Tatum
Offline12ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 25072009 18:51
The composition of functions f and g described on wikipedia is fine. And I think it's best to work with the definitions of functions, function composition etc. rather than this ball in box analogy (I don't know what this is by the way).

 Follow
 4
 25072009 18:53
What are you stuck up about? The function g takes elements from the set {1, 2, 3, 4} and maps them to the set {@, #, !!}.
It doesn't matter that f doesn't map anything in the set {a, b, c, d} to 2, all this means is that fg won't map anything in the set {a, b, c, d} to #.
EDIT: ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?Last edited by around; 25072009 at 18:59. 
Totally Tom
 Follow
 1 follower
 16 badges
 Send a private message to Totally Tom
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 5
 25072009 18:57
take f(x)=x and g(x)=x
g maps anything to anything but f(g(x)) doesn't map anything to anything.

 Follow
 6
 25072009 18:59
amended my post accordingly.

Totally Tom
 Follow
 1 follower
 16 badges
 Send a private message to Totally Tom
Offline16ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 25072009 19:00
(Original post by around)
amended my post accordingly. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 8
 25072009 19:01
(Original post by Totally Tom)
just because f doesn't map to 2 doesn't mean tha g shouldn't map 2 to anything.
(Original post by Drederick Tatum)
And I think it's best to work with the definitions of functions, function composition etc. rather than this ball in box analogy (I don't know what this is by the way).
then .
Yeah, I guess I will think about it like that.
Ball in box analogy is this say f(x)=y, defined by the above function then say we have an x in X. x is like a ball. Say if f(x)=y in y in Y. y is like a box. So f(x)=y, is like taking a ball and putting it in a box i.e. x is the ball y is the box. This is used to explain why x can only be mapped to one y, as you only have one ball so you can't put it into two different boxes.
I guess it doesn't really make sense in composite functions.
(Original post by around)
It doesn't matter that f doesn't map anything in the set {a, b, c, d} to 2, all this means is that fg won't map anything in the set {a, b, c, d} to #.Last edited by Simplicity; 25072009 at 19:08. 
 Follow
 9
 25072009 19:05
(Original post by Simplicity)
...
Ball in box analogy is this say f(x)=y, defined by the above function then say we have an x in X. x is like a ball. Say if f(x)=y in y in Y. y is like a box. So f(x)=y, is like taking a ball and putting it in a box i.e. x is the ball y is the box. This is used to explain why x can only be mapped to one y, as you only have one ball so you can't put it into two different boxes.
I guess it doesn't really make sense in composite functions. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 10
 25072009 19:11
Yeah, but that completely destroys my picture of what a function is. Sort of like classical physicist realising that gravity means a atom would implode as electron would collide with the atom if classical mechanics was true.

 Follow
 11
 25072009 19:34
(Original post by Simplicity)
Doesn't c get mapped to #. As c goes to 3 then #.
i'm sure i had a point when i made my post, but you've made me reconsider. i think what i was trying to say is that nothing in {a, b, c, d} gets mapped to # by fg via 2. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 12
 25072009 19:45
(Original post by around)
I just got shown who is the boss. By Simplicity.
i'm sure i had a point when i made my post, but you've made me reconsider. i think what i was trying to say is that nothing in {a, b, c, d} gets mapped to # by fg via 2.
How are you visualizing this? Because, this sorts of destroys the picture. I guess fg is really one thing. And that the only problem is that gf can't be possible. 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 13
 25072009 20:06
(Original post by Simplicity)
Ball in box analogy is this say f(x)=y, defined by the above function then say we have an x in X. x is like a ball. Say if f(x)=y in y in Y. y is like a box. So f(x)=y, is like taking a ball and putting it in a box i.e. x is the ball y is the box. This is used to explain why x can only be mapped to one y, as you only have one ball so you can't put it into two different boxes.Spoiler:Show
Anyway, everyone starts off with silly misconceptions like this. It's fine for a while, but you have to get out of the habit now, I'm afraid. Think of a function as a 'rule' that accepts certain inputs and gives you certain outputs. Doesn't matter what this rule is, as long as it's well defined. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 14
 25072009 20:31
Anyway, everyone starts off with silly misconceptions like this. It's fine for a while, but you have to get out of the habit now, I'm afraid. Think of a function as a 'rule' that accepts certain inputs and gives you certain outputs. Doesn't matter what this rule is, as long as it's well defined.
P.S. I still don't know why you have to get rid off picture and stuff. Because, wouldn't that make you a robot? Surely, if you truly understand something you can describe it with everyday reality instead of abstract stuff.
P.P.S. I was thinking of trying to think more abstract. But, I sort of went against this as I thought that would be counter productive. 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 15
 25072009 20:33
(Original post by Simplicity)
All my knowledge of set theory is based on people putting objects into bags and stuff.
(Original post by Simplicity)
P.S. I still don't know why you have to get rid off picture and stuff. Because, wouldn't that make you a robot? Surely, if you truly understand something you can describe it with everyday reality instead of abstract stuff. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 16
 25072009 20:50
(Original post by generalebriety)
No offence, but this might be why you're finding it so difficult. Set theory is a third year undergraduate course at Cambridge. If it was as simple as putting objects into bags...
Going back to the example is gf a surjection? as f isn't a surjection. But cleary every element of X is mapped to an element of Z through Y. I guess without the analogy I would have found this alot easier.
(Original post by generalebriety)
No. Why should pure maths (and set theory, of all things) correspond to anything tangible? If anything, I'd say this kind of oversimplification was an indication that you didn't understand it.
I read for example that Group theory is really important and could be understood through Physics. 
 Follow
 17
 25072009 20:58
(Original post by Simplicity)
Going back to the example is gf a surjection? as f isn't a surjection. But cleary every element of X is mapped to an element of Z through Y. I guess without the analogy I would have found this alot easier.
also(Original post by Simplicity)
I read for example that Group theory is really important and could be understood through Physics. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 62 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 18
 25072009 21:01
(Original post by Simplicity)
Okay, that was a bad example. I wondering why does set theory come really late? As I'm pretty sure someone with A level mathematics could handle the computational side of it.
I think it goes back to comments by Einstein.
~snip~
I read for example that Group theory is really important and could be understood through Physics. 
Simplicity
 Follow
 5 followers
 15 badges
 Send a private message to Simplicity
 Thread Starter
Offline15ReputationRep: Follow
 19
 25072009 21:35
(Original post by around)
Group theory is one of the easier to represent topics of pure maths: there are plenty of groups (like D_n) which can be visualised very simply (ie the group of symmetries of a regular polygon with n sides). No need to bring Physics into it.
(Original post by DFranklin)
But you don't seem to understand set theory, so how can you possibly make this judgement?
(Original post by DFranklin)
It's important to realise that reading books about the lives of physicists and mathematicians doesn't actually qualify you as a physicist or mathematician. 
generalebriety
 Follow
 15 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to generalebriety
 Wiki Support Team
Offline14ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team Follow
 20
 25072009 21:37
(Original post by Simplicity)
Going back to the example is gf a surjection? as f isn't a surjection.
gf(a) = @,
gf(b) = @,
gf(c) = #,
gf(d) = !!.
Does this look surjective?
(Original post by Simplicity)
I think it goes back to comments by Einstein. Something about if you understood something you could be able to make it so simple that bar maid could understand. I guess a crappy justification.
Related discussions
 gcse maths composite functions question
 GCSE Maths question on composite functions
 Can you answer this composite functions question?
 quick composite functions question.
 C3  ocr  composite functions question help
 Composite functions....help????!!!
 Composite functions (ranges)
 Composite functions
 Integration question
 C3 Composite functions
Related university courses

Mathematics and Physics
University of Bristol

Engineering Mathematics
University of Bristol

Mathematics Operational Research and Statistics with a Year Abroad
Cardiff University

Computer Science and Mathematics
Edge Hill University

Mathematics
University of Oxford

Mathematics and Computer Science
University of Oxford

Mathematics and Computing with an Integrated Foundation Year with Professional Development
Brunel University London

Mathematics and Finance
University of Chichester

Mathematics and Philosophy
University of Oxford

Mathematics with Foundation
Durham University
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel