Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there any notation for referring to a general set of $N$ elements? Currently I'm using $\{1, \dots, N\}$, but the fact that the set consists of natural numbers is irrelevant. I'd prefer to just write something like ${\mathfrak{S}}(N)$. :-)

For instance, I know natural numbers are some times encoded as $0 = \{\}$, $1 = \{0\}$, $2 = \{0, 1\}$. The $N$:th element in such encoding could for instance do.

share|improve this question
    
Strange to see no votes on either the question or the answer! (+1 to both). –  Aryabhata Apr 27 '12 at 21:32
add comment

1 Answer

If we decode $0=\varnothing, 1=\{0\}, 2=\{0,1\}$ and generally $n+1=n\cup\{n\}$, then we have that $n$ itself is a set of $n$ elements.

If you don't want to confuse with the natural numbers you can use $[n]$ for example.

Whatever notation you chooses, though, just write it down. For example:

We will use ${\frak S}(n)$ to denote a fixed set of $n$ elements.

Or if you prefer

Let $A_n$ be a set of size $n$.

Then you can continue with $A_n$ instead.

As for a concrete notation for the set of size $n$, well.. there is none which I can recall.

share|improve this answer
    
Absolutely, but that is longer than just {1, ..., 32}. What I intended to ask was if there exists a well known notation already. –  aioobe Mar 28 '12 at 12:19
    
If you only use the set once, or in a very short and specific way... then there is no sense in introducing notation (even a relatively known one). If you wish to have a very general notation (which is what I thought you aim for) then there is nothing I recall as the standard set of size $n$. –  Asaf Karagila Mar 28 '12 at 12:21
    
I've seen texts that introduce $[n] = \{1,2,3,...,n\}$ and just use $[n]$ throughout. –  user17753 Dec 12 '12 at 17:33
    
@user17753: This is a question on what is your primitive mathematical notions. If you only have the empty set and the membership relation, then $n$ is already a set of $n$ elements. If you think of the natural numbers as a concrete and atomic object to your mathematical universe then $[n]$ is probably a good choice (do note that often the natural numbers begin at $0$ - as they should - so $[n]=\{0,\ldots,n-1\}$ in such context). –  Asaf Karagila Dec 12 '12 at 19:22
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.