Could you please explain, why the article isn't required before the word function
in the following sentence (from a book):
There are two ways to do this. 1. Extend the definition of function.
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityIt appears that what the author is asking you to extend is not the definition of any particular function, a determinate specific instance, but the definition of the word function. (In linguistic studies we would mark the word with italics, as I have done here, to signal that we are 'mentioning' the word rather than 'using' it to signify something else.)
In effect, the word is the 'name' of the concept, so like a personal name it is already determined and requires no further determiner.
However, it may be (you supply no context) that function may occur here in some such phrase as "function M" or "function qj". In such cases function acts much like a title in a proper name (Mr. Roberts), and is in effect a part of the name—so once more there is no need for a determiner.
You will find the same 'predetermined' construction with most phrases identifying an entity which is, in context, unique: "Room 207", for instance, or "Plate IV", or "English 101".
function
here The value of the function f at a point x is denoted f(x)
?
Jun 1, 2017 at 15:23