| Revision as of 04:23, 25 June 2003 editWshun (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,335 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:59, 20 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,383,653 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (52 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| There should probably be a distinction between the range and codomain. | |||
| {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} | |||
| I say this because I can't remember the exact definition of each, | |||
| }} | |||
| and I would like to be able to look it up on wikipedia! | |||
| == Added "Function Drinks" to the list == | |||
| ---- | |||
| If you consider a function <i>f</i> from <i>S</i> to <i>T</i>, where <i>S</i>, <i>T</i> | |||
| are non-empty, as a rule that assigns to each element of <i>S</i> (the domain) an unique element in <i>T</i> (the <b>codomain</b>), then: | |||
| When I searched for "Function" (looking for the beverage company) I had trouble finding it since it wasn't on this list. I added it for anyone who may be searching for "Function" in the future. | |||
| The subset of <i>T</i> defined as {all <i>y</i> in <i>T</i>, such that <i>y=f(x)</i> for some x in <i>S</i>} is the <b>range</b> of <i>f</i>. | |||
| ] (]) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Merge to ] == | |||
| Since you have defined function differently (not in terms of sets), it is hard to know exactly where to put this. | |||
| Now that this page is a disambiguation page, the material on here related to '']'' should be moved to '']'' ] 11:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Actually, I wrote the above, but I did not write the definition | |||
| on the main page. For that I would have used a more precise | |||
| formulation, e.g., something out Singer and Thorpe's ugrad | |||
| topology text. I let the main page more or less stand as | |||
| the level of math here (on wikipedia) seems to be about | |||
| 2d year level, and this is just fine for that. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| IMO, there should be a variety of "levels" of discourse on Misplaced Pages. The function article, for example, right now, is totally useless for nonmathematicians. It also, no doubt, does not reflect the latest research about functions. Eventually, we're going to want to include information to enlighten and please everyone. | |||
| : ] archived some of it to ] in November 2004; i moved the rest just now. This discussion should probably serve as a pointer. --] 02:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Personally, I think basic explanations for a lay audience are crucial to an encyclopedia, and the math section is sorely lacking those. Is it because you're incapable of producing such explanations, mathematicians? Or is it that you just don't wanna? --]---- | |||
| The definition of a function has not changed since I first studied Math. I am not aware of a state of the art definition. And yes, the definition could be more understandable to the lay man. More important the second definition of a function as a set of ordered pairs is wrong. No function can contain the ordered pairs (0,1) and (0,-1) because a function would assign to the first element "0" a unique element from the codomain, not both "1" and "-1." | |||
| ---- | |||
| You misrepresent what it says: a function ''can'' be considered as a set of ordered pairs, but not every set of ordered pairs defines a function. ] | |||
| == Opening paragraph == | |||
| ---- | |||
| I stand corrected. Apologies. | |||
| ---- | |||
| However, to define a function in a really understandable way would require something like tables and even diagrams. I think the Math people are literally crippled by the limitations of the Wiki software. I have been trying to figure out how to explain what Calculus is about for months--but the inability to use diagrams always stops me in my tracks. The ] entry describes the same basic concept. Is that page so un-understandable??? | |||
| AnonymousCoward | |||
| The opening paragraph had the following as a comment: "Is this whole paragraph anything but nonsense babble? Can someone fix it or remove it please?" I had to read through it a few times before I understood it myself. I've tried to fix some of the awkward language, but I'm not an engineer, so it'd be good if someone could have a look at what I've done. One thing that bugs me is that the very first sentence doesn't really make clear what an "entity" is. Given that this is a disambig, the whole thing should probably be moved somewhere. - ] 04:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| : I agree that the opening paragraph is pretty bad. I at least removed the reference to "TOGA meta-theory", which appears to be vanity, or original research, or even crankery. I just can't believe that the second-most-important thing people whould know about "function" is how it relates to "TOGA meta-theory". But I think more work is needed on this paragraph. -- ] 13:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Part of the problem is that mathematical notions such as functions | |||
| are just plain hard to understand. For example, the statement found on | |||
| the function page "Continuous Functions are those whose domains | |||
| and ranges are sets of real numbers and which satisfy additional constraints." | |||
| is just wrong. For example, finite dimensional linear operators are perfectly reasonable continuous functions taking elements from one linear space (domain) | |||
| to another (codomain, which may be the same space). | |||
| Explaining this requires that reader understand a slightly more abstract | |||
| and precise definition of function than so far given, and understanding | |||
| the structure of a finite dimensional linear space. | |||
| And we have a further conundrum, because the "range" of a linear operator | |||
| has a precise technical meaning, which is not the same as codomain. | |||
| : Having looked into it a little more, I think the TOGA thing is at best original research. There is no discussion of this on the web except for: | |||
| But I just cannot see how to explain such things in | |||
| :# This article and copies of it | |||
| "layman's terms". | |||
| :# The web sites in the <tt>casaccia.enea.it</tt> domain, apparently home of "A. M. Gadomski", the inventor of this theory | |||
| :# Other material directly related to Gadomski, such as | |||
| :Moreover, the changes on 27 May 2005 that added TOGA to the explanation of ] were made by an anonymous user at address 192.107.75.158, which resolves to <tt>nat-75-158.casaccia.enea.it</tt>, who is presumably Mr. Gadomski. | |||
| Taking a larger view, I suspect that part of the problem with math on | |||
| wiki is the same as with math in general. It's hard. I can scream through | |||
| a sci-fi or detective paperback at something like 100 pages/hour. | |||
| Getting through a page of math at the level I am capable of | |||
| comprehending (4th year/1st year grad) is something like 2-4 | |||
| hours per page, on average. Sometimes more: one particular | |||
| paper out of (the journal) Solid Mechanics Archives has occupied the | |||
| better part of 6 weekends so far, and I have only gotten through | |||
| 4 of 6 sections. | |||
| :So it appears that "TOGA meta-theory" is a recent invention of Mr. Gadomski, and not something that is widely understood or studied, and not appropriate for inclusion in the opening paragraph of this article. -- ] 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Math is hard. It's hard for almost all mathematicians too. | |||
| Can wikipedia offer something for both the lay reader and the | |||
| :Please also see ] where we can collect information as this isn't the only article this user edited. ] 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] mathematician? ] | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Hi, thank you for your critical comments. I am not the author of the previous modifications but I am "Mr. Gadomski", and I'm feeling responsible for this confusion. I do not want to enter in details of your argumentations what I consider not essential for the definition of ]. | |||
| Well, my point, which I evidently didn't make clear enough, is that basic concepts like "function" and "set" and a lot of other basic concepts can receive a relatively unrigorous introduction. See ] for an excellent example. Anyone who has read any basic text in math or logic knows that it can be done and to great effect. Now, I'm not saying (what would indeed be absurd) that a "simple" version of everything in math category should or can be given. Obviously, it can't, nor should we try to give one. (Of course, in ''any'' case, we should always strive for maximum clarity, and not just conceptual clarity but clarity to all sorts of adequately-prepared readers.) I just would like to see, associated with very basic concepts and theorems, some attempt at giving the sorts of explanations that one ordinarily gives to beginners, in order to help them get a fix on those concepts. If you don't think ''that'' can be done, it must have been too long since you were a beginner yourself. :-) | |||
| My proposal is based on the ''systemic generalization'' of the specific notions of this term ( ''systemic generalization'' means the selection of essential properties of a preselected concept, necessary and sufficient in order to use it in different contexts). | |||
| In the case of ''function'', its unique common feature is ''to be a property necessary for something planed or designed''. Of course, this idea is possible to express in different manner. In the TOGA meta-theory, the concept ''function'' is inserted into the formal specification of the relation between a system and its ''design-goal'', in the ''domain-of-activity'' of every intelligent agent/system/object/entity. | |||
| By the way, A.C., if you want, you can always e-mail images to jasonr at bomis dot com, and he can upload them to the server and tell you where they live. It's as simple as that... --] | |||
| Therefore, it is defined using the previously defined TOGA concepts. | |||
| In such systemic (== systems theory)context, ''function'' is recognized as '''''every goal-oriented property of a process or a system''''', where: | |||
| - ''goal'' is a requested state, - ''property'' is an abstact-system composed of the attributes of the system of interest. | |||
| Summarizing, my definition of ''function'' is possible to consider as a universal one which unifies numerous locally "functioning" definitions, and therefore it should be added explicitly. | |||
| ----- | |||
| From this moment, I am the unique User: 192.107.77.3: | |||
| It would like to suggest to merge this entry with the one for "Mapping". The two are already indicated as synonymous anyway. I have prepared a version in ]. If I don't hear any big objections I will make the neccessary changes. (My own feeling is that there should be something added about ''n''-ary functions with more than 1 arguement.) | |||
| P.S 1. I would I to notice that whole esplanation below is a part or directly results from TOGA, and more precisely speaking from the . | |||
| Another suggestion I would like to make is move the whole thing to "Mathematical function". The current beginning "In Mathematics" already suggests something like that and currently there are not too many references to "function" so I could easiliy fix that. | |||
| ''"In engineering, functions are necessary consequences of design goals. The direct carrier of a dynamic function is a process, and the direct carrier of a static function is a system. Therefore it is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes and systems, and one process or system can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, if the main function of a clock is to display the current time, that function can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes. | |||
| So, waddayasay Wikipedians? -- ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I approve, since I already pointed out that functions and mappings are used interchangeably most of the time today. I only worry that as simple as you make it, someone will claim the material is too "specialist." For that reason, I would include a large variety of examples. | |||
| Functions, limits and continuity need all need precise, yet understandable explanations. | |||
| That what I goddasay..RoseParks | |||
| ---- | |||
| Eventually it should be titled "Function (Mathematics)", but we don't have parens yet (Usemod 0.92). For now I don't see any problem with an article titled "function". --LDC | |||
| ---- | |||
| I totally agree, Jan. I also agree with LDC's comment (function is an important concept in Ancient philosophy, philosophy of biology, and ethics as well). Examples are always helpful, too... The article for now could live on ] or ], and then what I'd love to see (though I can't produce myself) is an explanation, on the page where the article ''doesn't'' live, a brief explanation of any differences in meaning between "function" and "mapping." --] | |||
| ---- | |||
| Ok. Thank you for your replies. I will put it under 'function' and make a small remark in 'mapping' on the difference (of which I am not really too sure). I'll think about some more examples, but I'm a bit timepressed. Maybe somebody else has some ideas. -- JanHidders | |||
| ''A system is said to be functioning if it is executing or if it is ready and able to execute its functions.'''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| The following is imported from "Mathematical Function/Talk". I redirected Mathematical Function to Function. --AxelBoldt | |||
| P.S 2. Sorry, English is not my mather language, therefore maybe some corrections of the style are necessary. | |||
| How do people think about merging this article with ] and then redirecting there? | |||
| This article's definition isn't even very mathematical. --AxelBoldt | |||
| I think they should be merged. The author of ] probably felt that ] is still too formal, and that is probably true. So perhaps we should merge this article with the part of ] that gives some examples. But maybe other people would like to start the article with an informal introduction, and only after that introduce the formal definition. So perhaps the following would be best: | |||
| # (initial abstract description) A '''function''' is a means of associating with every element in a certain set an unique element in another set. | |||
| # (informal discussion) some examples, use in mathematics, et cetera (this would contain the stuff from ] | |||
| # (formal definition) the formal definition in ] that ] now starts with | |||
| # (terminology) one-to-one, injective, et cetera | |||
| # (see also:) | |||
| -- JanHidders | |||
| :Regardless of all that, Misplaced Pages is not a place to put your original research and ideas. If at some time in the future, your ideas become widely accepted, then that is the time to include them in Misplaced Pages, not before. I have reverted your contributions to this article. Please make sure you understand the policy at ] before you edit this article again. Thanks -- ] 05:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| OK, Mr. Dominus. In order to be consequent and ethically correct, it is necessary to remove my orginal definition (if without references) and its explenation, | |||
| I think the difference between a mapping and a function is that a mapping X->Y can send one element of X to more than one element of Y.<br> | |||
| it means: | |||
| Eg. Let f: R -> R be defined by f(x) = x<sup>2</sup><br> | |||
| "''In general (not in the mathematical but in the engineering sense), a function is a goal-oriented property of an entity. The carrier of a function is a process; therefore, is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes, and one process can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, the main function of a clock, the presentation of time, can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes.'' ". | |||
| Then f is a function, but f<sup>-1</sup> is only a mapping. -- Tarquin | |||
| - By the way, after your simplifications you eliminated also ''static functions.''. You should remember that, independently on your definitions, a carrier of every process is a system, and not all functions are dynamic. | |||
| - Anyway, maybe, now is too early for my systemic generalized definition. Please return to many locally valid classical definitions, as you prefer. | |||
| I have seen "multi-valued function" for that kind of thing, but not mapping. --AxelBoldt | |||
| Thanks. - | |||
| ---- | |||
| ...so that a multi-valued function cannot be called a function? I don't like that... isn't there another term for that? --] | |||
| ---- | |||
| good point, I've seen & used "multi-valued function". On reflection, I think usage of function / mapping / transformation varied among my lecturers at uni, and some sought to make a useful distinction. -- Tarquin | |||
| ---- | |||
| It's a shame we have to wait until a consistent vocabulary becomes well-established among mathematicians before we can clear things up... --] | |||
| ---- | |||
| What about "binary relation"? --] | |||
| Yes, functions are ]s, but special ones. Maybe we can use "set-valued function" instead of "multi-valued function". This seems to be a logical and self-explanatory term. ] | |||
| Yes, functions are binary relations, but special ones. Maybe we can use "set-valued function" instead of "multi-valued function". It seems to be a logical and self-explanatory name. ] | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| In order to stop continuous Dominus' corrections of my orginal (unfortunately) explenations of the term ''function'', I have eliminated all my contributions to this article. | |||
| what is the difference between the codomain and range of a function? | |||
| I have reverted the opening paragraph to the previous form (history page: 05:18, 21 April 2005). | |||
| - I hope, now we have no problems with "orginal research" or "self promotion". | |||
| :The function ''f'' : '''R''' -> '''R''' with ''f''(''x'') = ''x''<sup>2</sup> has codomain '''R''' and range the non-negative reals. Range is the set of all outputs that the function produces; codomain is the set that all those outputs have to be a member of. If the range and the codomain are the same, then the function is onto, or ]. ] 04:38 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. By the way, if an "orginal reserch" is anonimous, then is it not more an "orginal research"? | |||
| ...I think, we need an explanation of this aspect in . | |||
| ---- | |||
| I have just uploaded three images: mathmap.png, an example on functions; notMap1.png, an example on not a function (but a multivalued function); and notMap2.png, an example on not a function (but a partial function). I will soon put the images in this page. ] | |||
| --] 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| After rewriting, the article is shorter and the paragraph below doesn't seem to fit. It is because the difference between the set-valued definition and the usual explicit formula definition is hidden by the "magic" word ]. However, this is a good paragraph and someone may like to put it back: | |||
| This definition of function provides mathematicians with a number of useful advantages over the "explicit formula" definition: | |||
| *Clearly, if we already have an explicit formula for ''f''(''x''), we can construct the set of pairs ''f''; so nothing is lost by this definition. | |||
| *The definition allows us to consider functions in the abstract which, as a practical matter, could never be evaluated. In particular, functions which would require an infinite number of operations to evaluate can be considered as a set which has been ''given'' as a whole, rather than calculated. | |||
| *In many cases, there ''is'' no explicit formula which amounts to more than a "table" of arguments and values; the above definition accommodates these types of functions naturally. | |||
| *We can talk about ''sets'' of functions without specifying them exactly; for example, given the domain '''R''' of real numbers, and the codomain '''N''' of natural numbers, we can talk about the set of ''all'' functions of the form ''f'': '''R''' → '''N''', or some subset of these functions which satisfy other criteria. Mathematicians are often interested in such generalizations. | |||
| *In some cases, it may be unclear whether or not some binary relation ''f'' is "truly" a function; the definition provides a way of proving the existence of a well-defined function without actually specifying an explicit formula. | |||
| --] | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Would it make sense to replace this with a decent disambiguation page? Right now we start with a history paragraph about the mathematical concept, then the computer science paragraph mentions concepts that haven't even been defined, then the sociology paragraph uses a completely different notion of function, then the math starts. The notion of function in biology should also be explained somewhere, and the etymology. ] 02:48 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) | |||
| === More on TOGA Meta-Theory === | |||
| There obviously is a case for separating out the biology and sociology. But I think putting the computer science elsewhere would actually diminish the content. | |||
| (Later) | |||
| Well, now the computer science wording on domain and codomain is gone. Really, I think this is unhelpful. | |||
| ] | |||
| You are right. I reintroduced it at the end of the paragraph on domain and codomain. I realized that the correspondence sets<->datatypes makes a perfect source of examples and motivation for the concept of "partial function" and the distinction between "codomain" and "range", but I don't know how to write that coherently and, more important, briefly. -- ] | |||
| Well, maybe a solution is to have a function (mathematics) page and a function (computing) page. Or maybe there is a way to talk about function-as-relation, and function-as-expression; that could be put on a function page that was really disambiguating and fixing ideas. Currently a function is a "machine" and then that idea is quickly dropped. Perhaps I do favour a 'function (mathematics)' page for the bulk of the current material. | |||
| ] | |||
| Much of the content that would go into 'function (programming)' or 'function (computing)' is covered in 'subprogram'. but in a way that IMHO doesn't do justice to the importance of functions and makes too many explicit references to specific computer languages. There seems to be a tension between the way computer scientists and mathematicians want pages to look here on Misplaced Pages. -- ] | |||
| Well, I'm new round here, but I'm aware of that sort of thing. It's one reason I added something today to the ] page. The ] page isn't great. The 'neutral point of view' might regard 'function (mathematics)' as a cop-out; so in a sense it is better to have the old debate about this out in the open somewhere. | |||
| ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I have moved the section on explicit function and implicit function to ] | |||
| I have removed this yet again, for the same reasons as before. To wit: it is original research; it does not appear to be widely accepted by any scientific or philosophical community; it appears to be the ideas of a single individual a Mr. Adam Maria Gadomski; it appears to be a vanity placement. -- ] 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The two sections below works for real or complex functions, not general functions: | |||
| == Opening paragraph == | |||
| ==Elementary Functions== | |||
| Elementary functions are "basic" or "simple" functions, these are the most commonly used types of functions. These functions involve ], ], ]s, ]s, ], ]s, ]s, ]s, ], and ]. Example of non-elementary functions are ]s and ]s. | |||
| The opening paragraph is still very hard to understand. I suggest we delete it until someone comes up with something better. If no one objects, I will do this in 7 days. ] 01:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Calculus== | |||
| == Reverting self-reference == | |||
| The ] of a function, at some ], is a measure of the rate at which that function is ] (as an ] undergoes ]). | |||
| I'm removing the following self-reference from the top of the article: | |||
| --] | |||
| {{{2|:<span class="plainlinks selfreference">''}}}For the Administrator Wikipedian, see ].{{{2|''</span>}}} | |||
| It seems highly unlikely that someone typing "function" into Misplaced Pages would expect to be taken to the user page of a Wikipedian with a similar name. We don't have a disambiguation link from ] to ], and I don't think it's a good practice to start. —]] 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (whose user page is thankfully not linked to from the ] article) | |||
| Well, Im obviously not getting along with the mathematicians here; but, shouldn't there be ''some'' kind of link here to derivative and ''some'' kind of mention of calculus etc? ] | |||
| :I definitely agree. I was going to remove this myself last time I was here. Don't actually remember why I didn't, but glad to see it go. -] <small>(])</small> 09:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Why I deleted the introduction. == | |||
| Yeah, that's the difficulty. Functions in daily uses-physics, engineering, high schools-are those kind of functions that derivatives are well-defined. But functions in pure mathematical senses (as the piecewise function in the article) have nothing to do with derivatives. A good introduction paragraph could settle the issue, but all versions so far just focus on what a function is theoretically. ] | |||
| Looking at other disambiguation pages, they do not attempt a general definition but procede directly to the disambuation. The current definition is cute but confusing. At first I tried to refine it, but decided that was inappropriate. Disambiguate first, then define. ] 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| A rewritten of introduction. Settle some questions about calculus and the strange definitions. ] | |||
Latest revision as of 15:59, 20 August 2024
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Added "Function Drinks" to the list
When I searched for "Function" (looking for the beverage company) I had trouble finding it since it wasn't on this list. I added it for anyone who may be searching for "Function" in the future. LaughinSkull (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Merge to Talk:Function (mathematics)
Now that this page is a disambiguation page, the material on here related to Function (mathematics) should be moved to Talk:Function (mathematics) Ae-a 11:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- User:Brianjd archived some of it to Talk:Function (mathematics)/archive 1 in November 2004; i moved the rest just now. This discussion should probably serve as a pointer. --Piet Delport 02:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph had the following as a comment: "Is this whole paragraph anything but nonsense babble? Can someone fix it or remove it please?" I had to read through it a few times before I understood it myself. I've tried to fix some of the awkward language, but I'm not an engineer, so it'd be good if someone could have a look at what I've done. One thing that bugs me is that the very first sentence doesn't really make clear what an "entity" is. Given that this is a disambig, the whole thing should probably be moved somewhere. - RedWordSmith 04:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the opening paragraph is pretty bad. I at least removed the reference to "TOGA meta-theory", which appears to be vanity, or original research, or even crankery. I just can't believe that the second-most-important thing people whould know about "function" is how it relates to "TOGA meta-theory". But I think more work is needed on this paragraph. -- Dominus 13:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Having looked into it a little more, I think the TOGA thing is at best original research. There is no discussion of this on the web except for:
- This article and copies of it
- The web sites in the casaccia.enea.it domain, apparently home of "A. M. Gadomski", the inventor of this theory
- Other material directly related to Gadomski, such as this conference talk announcement
- Moreover, the changes on 27 May 2005 that added TOGA to the explanation of Function were made by an anonymous user at address 192.107.75.158, which resolves to nat-75-158.casaccia.enea.it, who is presumably Mr. Gadomski.
- So it appears that "TOGA meta-theory" is a recent invention of Mr. Gadomski, and not something that is widely understood or studied, and not appropriate for inclusion in the opening paragraph of this article. -- Dominus 13:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please also see User_talk:192.107.77.3 where we can collect information as this isn't the only article this user edited. Sbwoodside 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your critical comments. I am not the author of the previous modifications but I am "Mr. Gadomski", and I'm feeling responsible for this confusion. I do not want to enter in details of your argumentations what I consider not essential for the definition of function. My proposal is based on the systemic generalization of the specific notions of this term ( systemic generalization means the selection of essential properties of a preselected concept, necessary and sufficient in order to use it in different contexts).
In the case of function, its unique common feature is to be a property necessary for something planed or designed. Of course, this idea is possible to express in different manner. In the TOGA meta-theory, the concept function is inserted into the formal specification of the relation between a system and its design-goal, in the domain-of-activity of every intelligent agent/system/object/entity. Therefore, it is defined using the previously defined TOGA concepts. In such systemic (== systems theory)context, function is recognized as every goal-oriented property of a process or a system, where: - goal is a requested state, - property is an abstact-system composed of the attributes of the system of interest.
Summarizing, my definition of function is possible to consider as a universal one which unifies numerous locally "functioning" definitions, and therefore it should be added explicitly.
From this moment, I am the unique User: 192.107.77.3: Adam Maria Gadomski
P.S 1. I would I to notice that whole esplanation below is a part or directly results from TOGA, and more precisely speaking from the SPG conceptualisation, 1988.
"In engineering, functions are necessary consequences of design goals. The direct carrier of a dynamic function is a process, and the direct carrier of a static function is a system. Therefore it is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes and systems, and one process or system can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, if the main function of a clock is to display the current time, that function can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes.
A system is said to be functioning if it is executing or if it is ready and able to execute its functions.''
P.S 2. Sorry, English is not my mather language, therefore maybe some corrections of the style are necessary.
- Regardless of all that, Misplaced Pages is not a place to put your original research and ideas. If at some time in the future, your ideas become widely accepted, then that is the time to include them in Misplaced Pages, not before. I have reverted your contributions to this article. Please make sure you understand the policy at Misplaced Pages:No original research before you edit this article again. Thanks -- Dominus 05:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, Mr. Dominus. In order to be consequent and ethically correct, it is necessary to remove my orginal definition (if without references) and its explenation, it means: "In general (not in the mathematical but in the engineering sense), a function is a goal-oriented property of an entity. The carrier of a function is a process; therefore, is possible to realise the same function using different physical processes, and one process can be a carrier of multiple functions. For example, the main function of a clock, the presentation of time, can be realized by different physical processes, including atomic, electronic, and mechanical processes. ". - By the way, after your simplifications you eliminated also static functions.. You should remember that, independently on your definitions, a carrier of every process is a system, and not all functions are dynamic. - Anyway, maybe, now is too early for my systemic generalized definition. Please return to many locally valid classical definitions, as you prefer. Thanks. - Mr. A.M.Gadomski
In order to stop continuous Dominus' corrections of my orginal (unfortunately) explenations of the term function, I have eliminated all my contributions to this article. I have reverted the opening paragraph to the previous form (history page: 05:18, 21 April 2005).
- I hope, now we have no problems with "orginal research" or "self promotion".
P.S. By the way, if an "orginal reserch" is anonimous, then is it not more an "orginal research"?
...I think, we need an explanation of this aspect in Misplaced Pages:No orginal research.
--Adam M. Gadomski 16:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
More on TOGA Meta-Theory
I have removed this yet again, for the same reasons as before. To wit: it is original research; it does not appear to be widely accepted by any scientific or philosophical community; it appears to be the ideas of a single individual a Mr. Adam Maria Gadomski; it appears to be a vanity placement. -- Dominus 19:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph is still very hard to understand. I suggest we delete it until someone comes up with something better. If no one objects, I will do this in 7 days. Volfy 01:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverting self-reference
I'm removing the following self-reference from the top of the article:
- For the Administrator Wikipedian, see User:Func.
It seems highly unlikely that someone typing "function" into Misplaced Pages would expect to be taken to the user page of a Wikipedian with a similar name. We don't have a disambiguation link from Neutral to User:Neutrality, and I don't think it's a good practice to start. —Caesura 18:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (whose user page is thankfully not linked to from the Caesura article)
- I definitely agree. I was going to remove this myself last time I was here. Don't actually remember why I didn't, but glad to see it go. -Ethan (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Why I deleted the introduction.
Looking at other disambiguation pages, they do not attempt a general definition but procede directly to the disambuation. The current definition is cute but confusing. At first I tried to refine it, but decided that was inappropriate. Disambiguate first, then define. Rick Norwood 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Category: