Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21f249f2d181ef0

Jump to content

Talk:Binary relation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Jochen Burghardt in topic Inconsistent Definition of Bijective

Inconsistent Definition of Bijective

[edit]

The definition of a bijective relation on this page is that it is injective and surjective. This would allow the relation R: {a,b} x {u,v,w} where aRu, aRv, and bRw. However, this page then says "In other words, every element of the domain has exactly one image element and every element of the codomain has exactly one preimage element", which would not allow R. Those statements are equivalent only for injective and surjective *functions*. Which definition is true? ~2026-30270-13 (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where did you find that definition? The article defines
  • (in paragraph "Uniqueness properties":) injective relation,
  • (in paragraph "Totality properties":) surjective relation,
  • (in paragraph "Uniqueness and totality properties":) injective function, surjective function, bijective function.
I now indented the latter 3 definitions to emphasize that they are subcases of functions. Your example is not covered by any of these definitions; it may be valuable as a counterexample demonstrating why no notion of bijective relation (intended as a proper genenralization of bijective function) can be defined. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply