I am curious about a "contradiction" in the definition of functions that has long been unsolved in my head.
If we define a function $f$ from a set $A$ to $B$ as an object such thatf: " $\forall a \in A. \exists ! b \in B. b = f(a)$",
then such an object could then be equally defined as $\prod_{a \in A} f(a)$, that is, a member of $\prod_A B$.
For $A=\mathbb{R}$, such an set can only exist if the axiom of choice holds. How does one get round this contradiction ?
The axiom of choice is not needed in order to construct a function from $\Bbb R$ to $\Bbb R$: for instance, every polynomial with concretely specified coefficients is a function from $\Bbb R$ to $\Bbb R$ whose existence does not depend on the axiom of choice, the most obvious examples being the constant functions and the identity function.
The axiom of choice is equivalent to the statement that all Cartesian products of non-empty sets are non-empty; this does not mean that we can never prove that a particular Cartesian product of non-empty sets is non-empty without using the axiom of choice.