Hello all,

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

Is my expression right?

Thanks very much guys!

ssharish

Results 1 to 5 of 5

- October 19th 2011, 02:37 PM #1

- Joined
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 27

## Comperhension

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, 12:55 AM #2

- Joined
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 5,417
- Thanks
- 718

- October 20th 2011, 03:46 AM #3

- Joined
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 27

## Re: 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, 03:55 AM #4

- Joined
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 5,417
- Thanks
- 718

## Re: 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, 04:23 AM #5

- Joined
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 27