Definition talk:Mapping

I'd dispute:


 * $f: x \mapsto y$, which emphasizes the interpretation of a mapping as "a thing which associates elements to other elements" rather than "a thing that turns one thing into another"

as the "arrow" notation does rather give the "goes to" impression, whereas the "equal" notation emphasises the "isness" of the relationship between $x$ and $y$.

So from that point of view I would suggest that $f: x \mapsto y$ specifically emphasizes the interpretation of a mapping as "a thing that turns one thing into another" rather than "a thing which associates elements to other elements".

But ultimately it's empty wordage which doesn't actually convey any extra meaning, so I'd vote for not including that statement in there at all.

What does anyone else think? --prime mover 10:40, 11 March 2012 (EDT)


 * After deleting my response several times while disagreeing with myself, I think it's best to remove the statement entirely. It confuses rather than enlightens. --Lord_Farin 11:00, 11 March 2012 (EDT)


 * Okay, I'm okay with deleting it. Has anyone else seen the other notations below it in common use? It might be a good idea to indicate that $\mapsto$ is common and the others are not. --GFauxPas 11:19, 11 March 2012 (EDT)