# Should functions be assumed to behave like the identity function when evaluated outside their domain?

Suppose we have a set $f$ of ordered pairs (so not a triple $(X,Y,f)$ but just the $f$) and suppose that $f$ has the appropriate property such that we can view $f$ as a function. Formally, we wish to add a function $f'$ to our language. My understanding is that first-order logic demands that functions be total, thus $f'$ needs to be defined for all possible inputs. My question is, does setting $f'(x)=x$ for all $x$ outside the domain of $f$ lead to any contradictions or undesirable technicalities? And if not, is this the standard approach?

-
The best solution, I think, is to add another constant $c$ to the language and require $f(x)=c$ if and only if $x$ is not in the original domain of $f$. –  Asaf Karagila Sep 21 '12 at 11:57
The best solution is, of course, to work with partial functions. See my answer. –  Andrej Bauer Sep 21 '12 at 12:49
There is also a context mismatch in the question. By convention, every function must be total when interpreting a first-order language. However, in that context a function is a symbol of the language. The interpretation of that symbol is a set of ordered pairs but it is best not to confuse the symbol with its interpretation when working in this kind of context. Outside that context, a partial function is a perfectly legitimate object. –  François G. Dorais Sep 21 '12 at 13:42
I'm with @Andrej Bauer. The Fregean alternative of turning partial functions into total ones by stipulating a default value has, inter alia, the nasty feature of (in general) turning partial computable functions into total non-computable functions. –  Peter Smith Sep 21 '12 at 15:55
And continuous ones to non-continuous ones. And smooth ones to non-smooth ones. And homomorphisms to non-homomorphisms. –  Andrej Bauer Sep 21 '12 at 18:17

Prescribing the value of a partial function outside of its domain in an ad-hoc fashion is a very bad idea because it makes statements "accidentally" true, or false as the case may be. Since one purpose of logic is to help mathematicians with their work (and not to trick them), we should avoid situations in which sensless things behave as if they are meaningful. An aside: for the same reason type theory is a better formalization for the working mathematician (not a set theorist or a meta-mathematician) than set theory, because in type theory it makes no sense to say "the empty set is an element of the number $\sqrt{2}$".