Set Theory – Why No Function Has Nonempty Domain and Empty Range

elementary-set-theoryfunctions

Let $A$ to be a nonempty set and $B= \emptyset$; then $ A \times B$ is a set. And let $F$ be a function $A \to B$. Then $F \subseteq A \times B$. By the axiom of specification, $F$ must exists (if I didn't mess up something).

But the book I'm reading, Elements of Set Theory by Enderton, says that no function could have a nonempty domain and an empty range, and no more detail is given.

So my confusion arises. His statement against my proof. The only axiom as far as I know to prove such a set does not exist is the axiom of regularity. But I can't give such a proof. So I need help. I hope someone could clearly explain why such a function doesn't exist, and why this doesn't contradict the axiom of specification.


Let me explain my confusion in more detail:

First of all, I know that $A \times \emptyset$ is empty. But $ \emptyset \times A$ is also an empty set, yet there is no problem with functions with an empty domain.

The book I'm reading defines a function as:

"A function is a relation such that for each $x$ in $\operatorname{dom} F$ there is only one $y$ such that $x \mathop F y$."

and a relation as:

"A relation is a set of ordered pairs."

Now, let me define the function $F$ as: $$F = \{\langle x,y \rangle \mid x \in A \text{ and } y \in B \text{ and … other conditions} \}$$ so it's equal to: $$F = \{ \langle x,y \rangle \in A \times B \mid \text{… other conditions} \}.$$

Doesn't that mean that $F$ meets the conditions of the axiom of specification, and therefore exists?


What I would specifically like to ask is:

  1. How do you define a function $F$ (as precisely as possible)?

  2. Why does the argument above not imply that a function $F: A \to B$ always exists?

  3. Does $F \subseteq A \times B$ still hold when $B = \emptyset$?

(The answer to #2 cannot simply be that $A \times B = \emptyset$, because $ B \times A = \emptyset$ as well, but a function $B \to A$ does exist.)

Best Answer

The standard set-theoretic way to define functions is that:

  1. The cartesian product of the sets $A$ and $B$, written as $A \times B$, is the set of all ordered pairs where the first element of the pair is in $A$ and the second in $B$: $$A \times B = \{(a,b): a \in A, b \in B\}.$$

    (Representing these ordered pairs as sets, and showing that the cartesian product of two sets is indeed a set under the axioms of set theory, are details that we may safely skip here.)

  2. A relation $R$ between the sets $A$ and $B$ is any subset of their cartesian product: $R \subset A \times B$.

    (Often, by convention, we write $a \mathop R b$ as a shorthand for $(a,b) \in R$; this is particularly common when the symbol chosen for the relation is not a letter like $R$, but something abstract like $\sim$ or $\odot$.)

  3. A function $f$ from $A$ to $B$ is a relation between $A$ and $B$ (i.e. a subset of their cartesian product) satisfying the following two extra conditions:

    • existence of images: for all $a \in A$, there is a $b \in B$ such that $(a,b) \in f$.

    • uniqueness of images: if $(a,b) \in f$ and $(a,b') \in f$, then $b = b'$.

    If the relation $f$ is a function, then, for each $a \in A$, there exists exactly one $b \in B$ satisfying $(a,b) \in f$. We call this $b$ the image of $a$ under $f$, written $f(a)$, so that: $$f(a) = b \iff (a,b) \in f.$$


So, what about when $B = \varnothing$? In that case, for any $A$, the cartesian product $A \times B = \varnothing$, since there exist no pairs $(a,b)$ such that $a \in A$ and $b \in B$. (The same, of course, is also true whenever $A = \varnothing$.)

Since the only subset of $\varnothing$ is $\varnothing$, the only relation between $A$ and $B$ is the empty relation $\varnothing$. The question, then, is: is the empty relation a function from $A$ to $B$?

  • If $A \ne \varnothing$, no, it is not, because there exists at least one $a \in A$, but there can be no $b$ such that $(a,b) \in \varnothing$.

  • If $A = \varnothing$, yes, it is. In this case, both the existence and uniqueness conditions are vacuously true, since there is no $a \in A$ for which they could fail.

Thus, there is a (single) function from the empty set to any set (including the empty set itself), but there is no function from a non-empty set to the empty set.

Related Question