Let be the subset of defined by . Is a function from to ? Justify your answer.
A relation from a set to a set is said to be a function if every element of set has one and only one image in set . This means that no two distinct ordered pairs in can have the same first element.
To determine if is a function, we must check if a specific first element corresponds to a unique second element. Let us consider specific integer values for and .
For and , the ordered pair is . For and , the ordered pair is . In this case, the same first element, , is associated with two different second elements, and . Since the element has more than one image, the relation is not a function from to .
Explanation
The justification relies on Definition 5 provided in the context, which states that a relation is a function if every element has a unique image. By finding two pairs (6, 5) and (6, 7) within the relation derived from the rule (ab, a+b), we demonstrate that the element 6 maps to two different values, violating the definition of a function.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Recall Definition 5, which states a relation is a function if every element has one and only one image (no two distinct ordered pairs have the same first element).
Step 2: Test the rule with specific integers. For , the pair is .
Step 3: Test the rule with different integers. For , the pair is .
Step 4: Observe that the first element maps to two distinct second elements, and .
Step 5: Conclude that since an element has more than one image, is not a function.