Results 1 to 12 of 12

Math Help - Is this notation valid ?

  1. #1
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927

    Is this notation valid ?

    Hi all,
    let \mathbb{W}_t be a subset of \mathbb{W} for any t (its elements are defined by t). If I want to say that if I performed union of every set \mathbb{W}_t with 1 \leqslant t \leqslant k, I would obtain \mathbb{W}, is it valid notation to write :

    \displaystyle \mathbb{W} = \bigcup_{t=1}^{k} \mathbb{W}_t

    I don't want to use the heavy \mathbb{W} = \mathbb{W}_1 \cup \mathbb{W}_2 \cup \dots \cup \mathbb{W}_k notation, is the shortcut above valid and understandable ?

    Thanks all
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor Swlabr's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacterius View Post
    Hi all,
    let \mathbb{W}_t be a subset of \mathbb{W} for any t (its elements are defined by t). If I want to say that if I performed union of every set \mathbb{W}_t with 1 \leqslant t \leqslant k, I would obtain \mathbb{W}, is it valid notation to write :

    \displaystyle \mathbb{W} = \bigcup_{t=1}^{k} \mathbb{W}_t

    I don't want to use the heavy \mathbb{W} = \mathbb{W}_1 \cup \mathbb{W}_2 \cup \dots \cup \mathbb{W}_k notation, is the shortcut above valid and understandable ?

    Thanks all
    Yes. Not only is it valid and understandable, that is the standard notation for what you are trying to do.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,513
    Thanks
    769
    Yes, this notation is fine. As a minor point, the previous discussion should make it clear that t is an integer, not a real.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Yes, it is an integer, I often forget to add obvious stuff like this although I know I shouldn't
    Thanks for your replies !!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Rather than say "defined by t", I would say instead "t is the index".

    Otherwise, from a practical, everyday working point of view, this is accepted notation, and is commonly found in mathematics, even among logicians and set theorists.

    However, from a more strict, albeit pedantic, point of view, the notation is flawed: 'W' is being used in two different and incompatible ways. First it's used to symbolize a certain function, then it is used to symbolize a particular subset of the union of the range of said function.

    Usually, for purposes of mathematical communication, there is no harm in such usage, but from a more strictly formal point of view, the usage is flawed in the way I mentioned.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    288
    Sorry I am confused by the above post what function is 'W' being used to symbolise?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    The function whose domain is some set of indices, of which 1 through k are members, and whose value is Wt for each t in the domain.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    288
    [QUOTE=Bacterius;592350]Hi all,
    If I want to say that if I performed union of every set \mathbb{W}_t with 1 \leqslant t \leqslant k, I would obtain \mathbb{W}, is it valid notation to write :

    is this what you are talking about? (sorry I am still a bit confused)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    Thanks Moeblee for the detailed reply, I appreciate it

    Hmmmm, \mathbb{W} would be a non-empty set of natural integers (for instance), and \mathbb{W}_t represents a subset of \mathbb{W}, whose elements are chosen as a function of t \in \mathbb{N}. A crude example would be :

    Quote Originally Posted by Example
    1 \leq t \leq 3, and \mathbb{W} = \{4, 11, 15, 16, 71\}

    \mathbb{W}_t = \{4, 11, 15\} if t = 1, \mathbb{W}_t = \{15, 71\} if t = 2 and \mathbb{W}_t = \{4, 16\} if t = 3.
    And I just wanted to know if it was correct (syntaxically speaking) to write :

    \displaystyle \bigcup_{t=1}^{3} \mathbb{W}_t = \mathbb{W}_1 \cup \mathbb{W}_2 \cup \mathbb{W}_3 = \mathbb{W}

    For any k \in \mathbb{N} - for the example k = 3.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    466
    Thanks
    4
    Yes, that's all correct. And your use of 'W' in that way is well understood among mathematicians including set theorists. My only point though is that from an extremely technical point of view, the symbol 'W' should not be used both for the function itself and the union that you mentioned. But, again, that is only from a very technical point of view that is not of concern in ordinary, everyday mathematical communication.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Super Member Bacterius's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Wellington
    Posts
    927
    MoeBlee I was replying to "hmmmm" (that was awkward, no pun intended)
    Thanks for clarifying though, I'll make good use of it
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    288
    yeah i wasnt confused by the notation i was asking moeblee for clarification of the point about W being used in two ways because I didnt understand sorry i think I may have just made the thread a bit confusing but thanks anyway
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. A Quick Question on Valid Set Builder Notation
    Posted in the Pre-Calculus Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 7th 2011, 12:10 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 10th 2011, 02:23 AM
  3. valid,non valid arguments
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 8th 2009, 06:12 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 26th 2009, 12:40 PM
  5. Is this valid?
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 7th 2009, 05:38 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum