Can you use the word "assigning" to mean "mapping"?
Jose Capco
Recently my supervisor got annoyed when I wrote :
let f:A-->B be a monomorphism assigning each x in A to f(x) in B
blablabla.
He said I should replace the word "assigning" to "mapping".. though I
personally don't think this is something that results into confusion.
I think one can use the word "assigning" every now and then to mean
"mapping".. but maybe there is an exact mathematical meaning to
"assigning" that may cause some confusion.
Any feedbacks?
Sincerely,
Jose Capco
Chip Eastham
wrote:
Hi, Jose:
I guess the word "assigning" might be used frequently
as a converse to "mapping". That is:
Function f is defined by assigning f(x) to x.
Function f is defined by mapping x to f(x).
regards, chip
Axel Vogt
Every Algebraist gets mad reading "assign x+1 to x".
Do not know whether in English there different words
for "zuordnen" and "zuweisen".
J. Clarke
Welcome to the world of employment. Learn to pick your battles--this is
not one that's worth fighting, just be reasonable and do it his way. He
doesn't need a reason--he's the boss and he's establishing dominance.
William Elliot
> Recently my supervisor got annoyed when I wrote :
>
> let f:A-->B be a monomorphism assigning each x in A to f(x) in B
> blablabla.
>
> He said I should replace the word "assigning" to "mapping".. though I
Of course, supervisors are paid to pick a yoon.
> personally don't think this is something that results into confusion.
"Mapping" is more professional.
> I think one can use the word "assigning" every now and then to mean
> "mapping".. but maybe there is an exact mathematical meaning to
> "assigning" that may cause some confusion.
>
"Assigning" lacks professionalism.
> Any feedbacks?
>
I'd write, "Let f:A -> B be a monomorphism."
To be loquacious, I'd write, "Let f:A -> B be a monomorphism from A to B."
If I were being paid by the word or wanted to small talk, I'd write,
"Let f:A -> B be a monomorphism from A to B assigning each x in A to
the element f(x) in B."
Whoops, did I too choose an assignment? Well, it does seem more natural
than mapping. Why is it necessary to spell it out what a function does?
Anyway, the supervisor missed that it's either
"A into B" or "A onto B" and that "A to B" is slack.
Riddle of the day. If f is a function from I_m onto U, what is f?
Andrew Usher
You are wrong; 'assigning' can't be used in that way. You should
realise that your English is less than perfect, too, and take
correction unless you have damn good evidence on your side.
Andrew Usher
Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake
wrote:
Using "assigning" doesn't strike me as wrong, but I would not have
used it. Using "mapping" is clearly not wrong. Personally, I would
use "taking". Since you are asking about the fine points of English,
and I can only speak accurately for American English, it is incorrect
to say "results into confusion" and correct to say "results in
confusion". We also would never say "Any feedbacks?" We would say
"Any feedback?". I guess feedback is thought of as a continuum rather
than as quantized.
WARNING: My English usage is generally considered to be very good,
but my punctuation is never considered to be very good, so don't look
to my use of punctuation as a guide to writing in English. I plan to
get a back about some day, but that day has not yet arrived.
Regards,
Achava
Derek Holt
As a native UK English speaker, I am ashamed to admit that I have no
idea at all what you mean by "I plan to get a back about some day". My
best theory so far is that you mean "book about it".
But on the topic of the thread, although it can become tedious, I
think it is better to use standard phraseology as much as possible,
and so I would suggest following the professor's advice and using
"mapping". This is not least because, as I have discovered as a
lecturer, departures from standard usage can be unexpectedly confusing
to non-native English speakers. Recently, for some reason I wrote "x
lies in X" meaning "x \in X" (i.e x is an element of X), and I found I
had to explain what I had meant to a few confused students.
Derek Holt.
Chip Eastham
My knowledge of German is hopelessly inadequate
to finding a parallel distinction "auf Deutsch".
But I do hear in "zuordnen" a cognate to the word
"ordinate" which is commonly understood to be
the value along the vertical axis which is
dependent upon the "abscissa" (value along the
horizontal axis) in speaking of Cartesian
co-ordinates.
What I tried to point out for Jose is that "to
assign" and "to map" reverse the roles of dependent
and independent values (as used in the sense of
functions that "assign" or "map" according to
some defining rule):
Function f assigns <dependent value>
to <independent value>.
Function f maps <independent value>
to <dependent value>.
I suspect Jose's supervisor would _not_ have been
"annoyed" by the construction:
Let f:A-->B be a monomorphism assigning f(x) in B
to each x in A.
But replacing "assigning" by "mapping" in Jose's
text would have been more localized and an easier
edit to "mark up" in a draft.
regards, chip
Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake
How can you say you didn't understand when you understood perfectly?
I mean to get a book about it someday is the precise phrase I
intended. Mix that with lack of sleep and illness and you have an
interesting cypher.
> But on the topic of the thread, although it can become tedious, I
> think it is better to use standard phraseology as much as possible,
> and so I would suggest following the professor's advice and using
> "mapping". This is not least because, as I have discovered as a
> lecturer, departures from standard usage can be unexpectedly confusing
> to non-native English speakers. Recently, for some reason I wrote "x
> lies in X" meaning "x \in X" (i.e x is an element of X), and I found I
> had to explain what I had meant to a few confused students.
>
> Derek Holt.- Hide quoted text -
>
I agree, of course. I had not realized that non-native speakers might
have difficulty with slight variations from the standard usages, but
of course it must be so as I think about it. However, I have this
thing about sticking up for originality when it is not clearly wrong,
Perhaps it is because of my constant use of the technique of
accidental originality.
Regards,
Achava