Does this formalism adequately describe functions of one variable?












2












$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $f$ be a function mapping every element of a set $X$ to a unique element denoted by $f(x)$ in a set $Y$.



Can this statement be effectively formalized by




$forall a (ain X implies f(a) in Y)$




What logical aspects of functionality, if any, would not be captured by this statement.






functions elementary-set-theory logic




functions elementary-set-theory logic






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







Dan Christensen

















asked 5 hours ago









Dan ChristensenDan Christensen

8,63821835




8,63821835












  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
    $endgroup$
    – bounceback
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
    $endgroup$
    – Randall
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    5 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Do you just mean that $f$ is well-defined (not one-to-many), or that $f$ is a constant function, that is, all elements of $X$ map to the same unique element of $Y$?
$endgroup$
– bounceback
5 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Seems like you're missing the uniqueness of $f(a)$ given $a$.
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Randall It is trivial to show that $forall a (ain X implies f(a)=f(a))$
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Why is that? Why can't I have two different $f(a)$'s, each one making your implication true?
$endgroup$
– Randall
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Randall If $f(a)=b$ and $f(a)=c$, by substitution have $b=c$. Thus $f(a)$ can have only a single value.
$endgroup$
– Dan Christensen
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
begin{align*}
(forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
end{align*}






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago



















3












$begingroup$

For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



$f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Given two non-empty sets $A$ and $B$, we say that the binary relation $fsubset Atimes B$ is a function from $A$ to $B$ if and only if
    begin{align*}
    (forall ain A)(exists!bin B)quadtext{such that}quad(a,b)in f
    end{align*}







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 5 hours ago









    APC89APC89

    2,443420




    2,443420












    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago












    • $begingroup$
      I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
      $endgroup$
      – Dan Christensen
      4 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago






    $begingroup$
    I am familiar with the that particular formalism.Could you comment on the one I presented here?
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago














    $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I guess the heading wasn't very clear. I have changed it.
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Christensen
    4 hours ago











    3












    $begingroup$

    For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



    Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



    $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



    If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



    1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



      Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



      $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



      If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



      1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



        Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



        $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



        If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



        1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        For a more or less standard FOL, as is typically used to formalize, e.g., ZFC set theory, writing $f(a)$ already implies that $f$ is a function. Your statement would merely add that the image of $X$ is contained in $Y$. If that's all you want, then this is fine.



        Fixing $ain X$, if $f$ is a set-theoretic function, as opposed to a logical function symbol, then $f(a)in Y$ would mean something like $exists yin Y.(a,y)in f$. This would imply $f$ is a total relation on $X$, but not that it is functional which would just add that such a $y$ has to be unique. This is the point of Randall's comments. Without the uniqueness constraint, $f$ could readily be a relation that relates $a$ to multiple elements of $Y$. Your argument that you can "trivially" show $f(a)=f(a)$ doesn't work when $f$ is not a function symbol. There is no term $f(a)$ in this context.1 Instead $f(x)=y$ is interpreted as $(x,y)in f$, so in your case you'd get $f(a)=f(a)$ means $(a,f(a))in f$ means $exists b.(a,b)in fland(a,b)in f$ which is, of course, equivalent to just $exists b.(a,b)in f$ which in no way states that that $b$ is unique.



        $f$ may still not be a function since we haven't said anything about how it behaves outside of $X$. You can add an additional constraint: $forall a,b.(a,b)in fimplies ain X$ which would say that $f$ is only "defined" on $X$. In APC89's answer, this is accomplished by requiring $fsubset Xtimes Y$.



        If you just want to specify that a binary relation $f$ is a function $X$ to $Y$, then APC89's answer provides the more or less standard definition for this, except for the unnecessary insistence that $X$ and $Y$ be non-empty. (Of course, if $Y$ is empty and $X$ is non-empty, there won't actually be any functions from $X$ to $Y$. On the other hand, $X$ being empty causes no problems at all.)



        1 If your logic has a definite description quantifier, you could say it is the term $iota b.(a,b)in f$, but this also would require $f$ to separately be shown to be a functional relation for this to give a useful result.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins

        17k11437




        17k11437






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3119587%2fdoes-this-formalism-adequately-describe-functions-of-one-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Image
            Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
            Read more

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Image
            Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
            Read more

            Musa

            Image
            Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
            Read more