Re: 2 pi i = 0

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Mike E.  Wrote in part:

> I think Joel and Bernard are on the same page as I am.  To speak the
> math that my son and daughter speak, my definition of a
> function is the
> same as their definition of a relation.
. . .
> Bottom line, it appears to me the old-timer definition of function is
> the same as the current definition of a relation.

This brings up an interesting pedagogical point.  Should you tell your
students about old-timer definitions?

I'd answer the question with a "yes".  Particularly as long as a significant
fraction of old-timers that they will have to deal with  (say 5%) are folks
that will be using "archaic" definitions.  This means we are probably a good
20 years away from when it may no longer be necessary to talk about
multi-valued functions.

Joel R.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.