Hello all,

I've come up with an alternative set comprehension for the former.

Is my expression right?

Thanks very much guys!

ssharish

Printable View

- October 19th 2011, 03:37 PMssharishComperhension
Hello all,

I've come up with an alternative set comprehension for the former.

Is my expression right?

Thanks very much guys!

ssharish - October 20th 2011, 01:55 AMemakarovRe: Comperhension
First please say if this is regular mathematical notation or possibly the syntax of some computer language. Second, are the left- and right-hand side propositions (something true or false) or sets?

- October 20th 2011, 04:46 AMssharishRe: Comperhension
Hi emakarov, sorry about my previous post not using the right mathematical notation or the symbols. I made a small research on what commands to use to substitute the irrelevant.

And yes its a set comprehension problem which I was trying to solve.

Thanks a lot

ssharish - October 20th 2011, 04:55 AMemakarovRe: Comperhension
So, these are sets, not propositions. Then the notation is {x ∈ A | P(A)} for some set A and property P, not {∀x : A | P(x)}. Also, sets can be equal: A = B; the notation A ↔ B does not make sense for sets A and B.

I would write your statement as follows:

.

Note that the right-hand side uses the existential quantifier because the left-hand side uses disjunction. - October 20th 2011, 05:23 AMssharishRe: Comperhension
Thanks a lot for correcting me emakarov. I really quite didn't quite get that right. And also I should have put x mod y rather than x / y as '/' doesn’t provide the remainder.

Thanks very much

ssharish