> sqrt(4) == 2; // true
> sqrt(4) == -2 // false

> doesn't know what a principal square root is

Picrel

unironically equivalent to the lambda calculus expressions

>>106019903 (OP)
> sqrt(4) == 2 or -2 // true
works for me

UUHHHHH NEGATIVE BROS?

>>106019903 (OP)
What's the definition of "function" in math?

>>106023223
a map from one set to another

>>106023244
What's a "relation"? How might a relation not be a function?

>>106019903 (OP)
>1.0 + 2.0 == 3.0 // false
Math is fake.

>>106023324
That should be true. Did you make that up?

>>106023286
first thing is that we need to point out the differences between technicalt definitions and linguistic definitions.
a function, of real numbers for example, is a map between to sets both of which being the set of real numbers.
linguistically this is a relation between two sets.
But mathematicians, like every other specialization/science/tech subject, use regular everyday words but ascribe technical definitions to them that might not be exactly the same as the linguistic definition.
so if mathematicians have different technical definitions between function and relation there's probably a reason for it, even if they seem similar in some cases there's probably cases where the differences are important so they have them.

>>106020537
wait till you hear about complex roots

>>106023324
it is true
you are a fake

>>106023383
>Did you make that up?
Yes.

sqrt(4) == {-2, 2} # True

Damn sci is here, even their most retarded frog posters are geniuses compared to us.

>>106023421
These applied mathematicians, whom we call computer scientists, wrote whatever programming language OP complains about as an application of math.