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 this set definition valid:

$$A = \{ |x| < 4 : x\text{ is an element of }\mathbb Z\}\quad?$$

share|improve this question
    
Are you sure you don't mean $A=\{-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3\}$? –  Daan Michiels May 17 '12 at 15:44
    
But the definition is in inverse order, I mean all the objects of the form |x| < 4. –  mehdi May 17 '12 at 15:45
    
To show part of the problem with your definition, one relatively legitimate way of reading it would have it define the set {true, false}, since the 'evaluation' to the left of the colon could be said to return the result true for certain elements of $\mathbb{Z}$ (e.g., $x=-1$) and false for other elements of $\mathbb{Z}$ (e.g., $x=8$). –  Steven Stadnicki May 17 '12 at 16:32

3 Answers 3

No, that's not correct notation. If you mean the set of all elements $x$ of $\mathbb{Z}$ such that $|x|<4$, then the standard set-builder notation is $\{ x \in \mathbb{Z} : |x|<4 \}$. The name of a general element of the set ($x$) goes before the colon, along with the statement of the universe of discourse ($\mathbb{Z}$). The condition an element of the universe has to satisfy to be in the set ($|x|<4$) goes after the colon.

share|improve this answer
    
no I know what A = {-3 .. 3} is I intentionally ask the inverse one if it is correct all objects of the form |x| < 4 –  mehdi May 17 '12 at 15:49
    
A = {some object definition : condition to be satisfied} –  mehdi May 17 '12 at 15:50
1  
@mehdi: I can't understand your comment at all. What set were you trying to define? What does it mean for an object to be "of the form $|x|<4$"? –  Chris Eagle May 17 '12 at 15:50
    
I wonder its meaning too thats why I asked if it is a valid definition. I am not trying to define any set just wonder is such def. valid –  mehdi May 17 '12 at 15:54
    
@mehdi: Huh? Chris just answered your questions that it isn't a valid definition as you wrote. (Manzooret chie daghighan!) –  Gigili May 17 '12 at 15:59

The general form of class builder notation is

$$ \{ f(x) : x \in S \mid P(x) \} $$

where $f$ is some function expression, $S$ is a class, and $P$ is a unary predicate. If $S$ is a set, then this notation also denotes a set, and we call this 'set builder notation'. I've borrowed the : and | from the magma language.

For example, the set {0, 1, 4, 9} could be given by

$$ \{ x^2 : x \in \mathbb{Z} \mid 0 \leq x \leq 3 \}$$

Usually one doesn't write all three parts. You can omit the first part:

$$ \{ x \in \mathbb{Z} \mid 0 \leq x \leq 10 \} = \{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 \} $$

You can omit the last part:

$$ \{ \sin(\pi x) : x \in \mathbb{Z} \} = \{ 0 \} $$

You can omit the middle part (but should be careful about forming proper classes!):

$$ \{ \{ x \} : \forall y, y \notin x \} = \{ \{ \emptyset \} \} $$

more commonly, you combine the second and third parts

$$ \{ 2x \mid x \in \mathbb{Z} \wedge |x| < 2 \} = \{ -2, 0, 2 \} $$

share|improve this answer

If you mean that $ A = \{ \lvert x \lvert : \lvert x \lvert < 4, \text{ and } x \in \mathbb{Z}\}$, then indeed you have a valid set. In that case you have in fact that $$ A = \{ 0, 1, 2, 3 \}.$$

However, the notation is a bit off as there might be a confusion about whether you mean that $A$ is a set where the elements are $\lvert x \lvert$ or if you mean that $A$ is the set where the elements are $x\in \mathbb{Z}$. In both cases, however, you actually have a set.

The only thing that someone might raise a finger at is the notation.

share|improve this answer
    
the elements of set A are "∣x∣ < 4" not a single number that makes me confused |x| is a single number so no problem –  mehdi May 17 '12 at 15:52
    
Yes, from your notation I would understand $A$ as the set of elements $\lvert x \lvert$ where $x \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\lvert x \lvert < 4$. Just to make sure: Are you asking whether you actually have a set, or are you asking if the notation is correct? –  Thomas May 17 '12 at 15:54
    
I don't think that anyone would see the notation as meaning that $A = \{-3, -2, ... , 2, 3\}$ by the way. If that is what you want, then the notation is definitely off. –  Thomas May 17 '12 at 15:55

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.