Definition talk:Well-Defined

If an "unambiguous" relation is different from a "well-defined" relation, why the need to disambiguate? --prime mover (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen "well defined" to mean "unambiguous", like in Definition:Inversion Mapping. Or is that using well-defined like it is on this page? --GFauxPas (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, the meaning as on Definition:Inversion Mapping is the same as for quotient relations - but with the admittedly trivial case of the diagonal equivalence relation. Perhaps we could say a "multifunction $f$ is well-defined (for $\mathcal R$) iff $(x,y) \in \mathcal R$ implies $f(x) = f(y)$" where $\mathcal R$ is an equivalence. --Lord_Farin (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, so maybe not "disambiguate", but add an "also defined as" to indicate that it means the same as "unambiguous". But you then have to go and define what "unambiguous" means - no such definition exists on this site, and I for one have no intuitive idea as to what it might mean. --prime mover (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)