2

I have a question regarding the set of functions resulting from a set raised to a power. I think I have part of the understanding correct, however I'm having trouble interpreting $Y^{\emptyset}$. I have read other posts and reference them at the end. It's my understanding $Y^{X}$ is as follows:

$Y^{X} = \{f_{0}, ..., f_{n}\}$

Where $f_{n}$ = $\{(x_{0}, y_{0}), ..., (x_{n}, y_{n})\}$ and each is a total single-valued function.

For example, all the functions resulting in set inclusion and exclusion (the Power Set $\mathcal{P}(X$)) is:

$X = \{True, False\}$ $Y = \{Admit, Exclude\}$

$Y^{X} = \{f_{0}, f_{1}, f_{2}, f_{3}\}$

$f_{0} = \{(True, Admit), (False, Admit)\}$ $f_{1} = \{(True, Exclude), (False, Exclude)\}$ $f_{2} = \{(True, Admit), (False, Exclude)\}$ $f_{3} = \{(True, Exclude), (False, Admit)\}$

$\mid Y^{X} \mid = card(Y^{X}) = \mid Y \mid^{\mid X \mid} = \mid \mathcal{P}(X) \mid = 4 $

A side note, $f_{2}, f_{3}$ are surjective and injective functions and result in a dichotomy for the truth function.

$1^{n} = 1, n \gt 0$, results in a single function $f_{0} = \{(0, 0), (1, 0), ..., (n, 0)\}$. This seems intuitive.

I begin to get confused for the $Y^{\emptyset}$ case. From other posts here and Wiki, this is as follows:

  • Algebra and Set Theory Definition: $\emptyset^{\emptyset} = Y^{\emptyset} = 1$
    • Based on the "empty function", $Y^{\emptyset} = \{\emptyset\}$
    • $2^2 = 1 * 2 * 2 = 4, 2^1 = 1 * 2 = 2, 2^0 = 1$ : dividing by 2 each time, where 1 is implicit in the multiplication.
  • Math Analysis Definition: $\emptyset^{\emptyset} = undef$

In above cases where the $X = \emptyset$, I'm confused how there could be any function between the empty set $X$ and base set $Y$. The empty set has no elements to map in a function. In this case, undef seems to fit this better. Can anyone provide guidence here?

$\emptyset^{n} = 0$ where $n \gt \emptyset$, makes sense to me because there are no functions that map between $n$ and $\emptyset$.

Perhaps it's because I'm looking at this as follows?

yn             *

y1       * 

y0  *
    x0  x1 ... xn

where the $*$ indicate an ordered pair, all of which make up a single function provided it is single-valued. The result of $Y^{X}$ is all of these unique functions.

UPDATE

Case (a) $0^{0} = 1$ because $x \notin \emptyset$ and therefore properties of a function are satisfied and $0 \subseteq X \times Y$. Case (b) $0^{1} = 0$ because properties of a function are not satisfied, $0 \in 1 \land y \notin 0$. Case (c) $1^{0} = 1$ because of Case (a). Case (d) $1^{1} = 1$ because $\emptyset \in 1 \land \emptyset \in 1$ and $\{(0, 0)\} \subseteq (1 \times 1)$.

Previous Post References: Prior Post Prior Post

  • 1
    $A^B$, as you note, is notation for the set of all functions from the set $B$ to the set $A$ (sometimes it also refers to the cardinality of this set, but I don't prefer this). So, $Y^\varnothing$ is the set of functions from $\varnothing\to Y$. But, there is only one function from the empty set to any other set, the empty function. So, the cardinality of $Y^\varnothing$ is 1. (Assuming $Y\neq\varnothing$ ofc) – Rushabh Mehta May 13 '19 at 22:14
  • Now you're wondering why there even is a function? Well, for a function to exist, every member of the domain must map to something. Clearly, every element of $\varnothing$ maps to something. I'd argue that $|\varnothing^\varnothing|=1$, but that's a bit controversial. – Rushabh Mehta May 13 '19 at 22:21
  • 1
    @DonThousand The statement "$\vert\emptyset^\emptyset\vert=1$" isn't controversial at all, it's a direct consequence of the definitions of the terms involved. – Noah Schweber May 13 '19 at 22:22
  • @NoahSchweber I've had numerous arguments with my math professor about this, I didn't think it was controversial till then. It could be that he's just different, but I wanted to play safe. – Rushabh Mehta May 13 '19 at 22:33
  • 2
    @DonThousand That's bizarre. The argument was really about this as opposed to the value of $0^0$ (which is a different question, and indeed has no universal convention)? If that's really what they claimed, they're simply wrong (which, to be fair, happens sometimes to all of us). – Noah Schweber May 13 '19 at 22:36
  • I'm still confused and I think it's due to the Cartesian coordinate system I used to understand this. With $0^{n}$ there are no coordinates on the x-axis to create pairs with. The set of pairs are my understanding of a function between two sets. –  May 13 '19 at 22:41
  • @Nick You are thinking of functions as pairs of coordinates. That isn't the right way of thinking about it. Functions don't have to have pairs of coordinates. This is way your intuition fails. – Rushabh Mehta May 13 '19 at 22:42
  • @Don Thousand is this because the empty function itself has no pairs of coordinates and somehow satisfies the definition of a function? Appreciate any more info on your statement. –  May 14 '19 at 00:15
  • 1
    @Nick The empty set is a set of pairs of coordinates. It's also a set of unicorns, etc. The point is that a thing is a function iff it satisfies the criteria for being a function; since those criteria are all phrased via universal quantification over the set in question, they're trivially satisfied by the emptyset. – Noah Schweber May 14 '19 at 00:21
  • It makes sense that $\emptyset^{1} = \emptyset$, because $x = \emptyset$ and there is no y that satisfies the properties of a function ($Y = {}$). Therefore universal quantification is false. I'm still unclear on $Y^{\emptyset} = {\emptyset} = 1$. Both $\emptyset \times 1 = \emptyset$ and $1 \times \emptyset = \emptyset$ have the single subset $\emptyset$, which is adding more confusion. –  May 14 '19 at 05:28
  • @NoahSchweber how can the empty set be a pair of coordinates, if by definition, it is empty? –  May 14 '19 at 05:49
  • 1
    @Nick It is a set of things which are pairs of coordinates - every element of the emptyset is an ordered pair! – Noah Schweber May 14 '19 at 16:33
  • @NoahSchweber I'm finding disputes about the empty set being a set of ordered pairs on this site. From your POV, "In the book Naive Set Theory, Halmos proves that the empty set is a set of ordered pairs because there is no element of the empty set that is not an ordered pair." In this it is a vacuous truth. In another post here, the answer is that the empty set does not contain ordered pairs. Note that $(a,b)= {{a}, {a,b}}$ implies ${a} \in {{a}, {a,b}}$. Whence the set $(a,b)$ cannot be empty, as it has ${a}$ as element. –  May 14 '19 at 17:00
  • @Nick Again, there's no tension here: "every element of the emptyset is a set of ordered pairs" does not mean "the emptyset contains an ordered pair," it just means "the emptyset doesn't contain anything other than ordered pairs." (Also, again you're conflating "is an ordered pair" with "is a set of ordered pairs" - the emptyset is a set of ordered pairs, meaning that it contains nothing that isn't an ordered pair, but it is itself not an ordered pair.) – Noah Schweber May 14 '19 at 17:19

1 Answers1

1

A map $f\colon X\to Y$ is a subset of $X\times Y$ with the following properties:

  1. for every $x\in X$, there exists $y\in Y$ with $(x,y)\in f$;
  2. for every $x\in X$ and every $y_1,y_2\in Y$, if $(x,y_1)\in f$ and $(x,y_2)\in f$, then $y_1=y_2$.

The first property ensures that every element of $X$ has an image, the second property ensures the image is uniquely defined.

If $X=\emptyset$, then there is a single subset of $\emptyset\times Y$, namely the empty set, which satisfies the properties above (because there is no way they can be false). You are questioning about what is mapped where: you have to assign an image to every element of $X$, if there's no element you're already done, aren't you?

Thus the set of maps $Y^\emptyset$ is a singleton consisting of the empty set: $$ Y^\emptyset=\{\emptyset\} $$ has cartinality $1$. Note that $Y$ has no special role here and can be any set.

The problem is with $Y=\emptyset$, because $\emptyset^X$ is empty whenever $X\ne\emptyset$, because you have no element where to map the elements of $X$; but there's no problem when $X=\emptyset$ as well, because of the argument above. Thus $$ |\emptyset^X|=\begin{cases} 1 & X=\emptyset \\[4px] 0 & X\ne\emptyset \end{cases} $$

Facts regarding limits and indeterminate forms have nothing to do with this combinatorial framework.

egreg
  • 238,574
  • This makes things clearer. I'm still confused. Based on the definition of a function, it requires $x \in X$. If there is no $x$ to satisfy this, how could there be a function? Do we just call this the empty function / empty map $\emptyset$? It also seems that there is no $y \in Y$ to satisfy the case of $\emptyset^{1}$, yet this is empty of functions and empty of the empty function as well. Thanks –  May 14 '19 at 00:11
  • @Nick The definition requires you assign an image to each element of $X$; if $X$ is empty, you cannot fail to assign images: is there some $x\in\emptyset$ that has no image? – egreg May 14 '19 at 08:13
  • Ok, in case (a), $\emptyset^{\emptyset} = 1 | undef$, it is 1 because $x \notin \emptyset$, therefore properties (1) and (2) are satisfied and $\emptyset \subseteq X \times Y$. In case (b), I'm still unsure on the undef. In case (c), $\emptyset^{1} = 0$, it is because (1) and (2) are not satisfied, $\emptyset \in 1 \land y \notin \emptyset$. In case (d), $1^{\emptyset} = 1$ because of case (a). In case (e), $1^{1} = 1$ because $\emptyset \in 1 \land \emptyset \in 1$ and ${(0, 0)} \subseteq (1 \times 1)$. Is this correct? Thanks –  May 14 '19 at 15:30
  • @Nick There is no case when the set $Y^X$ is undefined. – egreg May 14 '19 at 15:34
  • I'm using Mac OS's calculator and $0^{0}$ results in Error. I have read that "since xy as a function of 2 variables is not continuous at the origin" and Wiki says Caucy listed $0^{0}$ as an indeterminate form. Continuous: an infinitely small increment of the independent variable x always produces an infinitely small change of the output. In this case, a change of the input from $0^0 = 1$ to $0^1 = 0$, so there is a change of the output. It seems the consensus is that $0^{0} = 1$. So a little confusion here. Thanks –  May 14 '19 at 16:19
  • @Nick What has this to do with the set of maps? – egreg May 14 '19 at 17:07