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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I wish to use algebra to (is the term truncate?) the set of positive integers to the first 8 and call it for example 'n'.

In order to define $r_n = 2n$ or similar.

This means:

$$r_0 = 0$$ $$r_1 = 2$$ $$\ldots$$ $$r_7 = 14$$

However there would not be an $r_8$.

edit: Changed "undefined" to "would not be", sorry about this.

share|cite|improve this question
Please format using LaTeX code when possible. – Arkamis Aug 21 '12 at 13:56
You're going to have to give some more explanation. I don't see how $r_n=2n$ implies that $r_7=7$ and so on. What do you mean by a "variable for the first 8 integers"? – axblount Aug 21 '12 at 13:57
I would write something like $$ r_i = \begin{cases} i,& \text{ if }0\leq i\leq 7, \\ undefined,& \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$ Or maybe $r = \mathrm{id}_{\mathbb N_0}|_{\overline{0,7}}$ since Russians use the notation $\overline{m,n}:= \{m,m+1,\dots,n-1,n\}$. – Ilya Aug 21 '12 at 13:57
Sorry axblount, fixed. – alan2here Aug 21 '12 at 14:08

You could simply write

"Let $r_n = 2n$ for all integers $n$ from $0$ to $7$."

or perhaps

"Let $r_n = 2n$ for $n \in \{0,1,2,\dotsc,7\}$."

or, using the compact notation suggested by Ilya,

"Let $r_n = 2n$ for $n \in \overline{0,7}$."

or even, if it's clear from context that $n$ is an integer,

"Let $r_n = 2n$ for $0 \le n \le 7$."

However, if going with Ilya's notation, be aware that many English-speaking readers may not be familiar with it, so you should define it yourself, e.g. "Let $\overline{n,m} = \{n,\,\dotsc,\,m\}$ denote the set of integers between $n$ and $m$ inclusive."

(Ps. What's wrong with MathJax's rendering of \overline, anyway? The lines in my examples above seem to curve upwards at the ends like this, while the first — but not the second — one in Ilya's comment curves the other way.)

share|cite|improve this answer
I cannot see a curve (neither up not down) on any of the lines. So maybe the problem is in the rendering of your browser (or maybe it's your monitor; do you happen to still have a CRT?) – celtschk Aug 26 '12 at 17:12
@celtschk: No, I have a flat screen display, and I see the ends clearly shifted by one pixel from the middle of the line. Here's a screenshot. I suppose it might be a browser bug, or something with the OS font rendering. (I'm currently using Chrome on WinXP, which is not my usual browser or OS.) – Ilmari Karonen Aug 26 '12 at 17:23
@alan2here: The notation $x \in y$ has a well defined meaning: "$x$ is an element of the set $y$". When used as in "for all $x \in y$", one would typically read it simply as "for all $x$ in $y$". – Ilmari Karonen Aug 26 '12 at 17:53
I supose even a related statement could be "n∈{0,2,4,…,14}". Mind if I edit "rn=2n if 0≤n≤7" into your answer so that we can unify this into one answer? – alan2here Aug 26 '12 at 17:58
The overline is straight here, on Windows 7 with Firefox 7. Thanks Ilmari Karonen, that makes a lot of sence reguarding ∈. I've removed the comment to which it referred because it was long, wrong and now just in the way. – alan2here Aug 26 '12 at 17:58
up vote 1 down vote accepted

$r_n = 2n$ if $0 ≤ n ≤ 7$

Thanks Ilmari Karonen for the correction.

share|cite|improve this answer
I've never seen this particular notation, and I'd avoid it because it looks confusingly similar to standard set-builder notation. However, you could simply dispense with the curly braces and write "$r_n = 2n$ if $0 \le n \le 7$", which is perfectly understandable. – Ilmari Karonen Aug 26 '12 at 16:32

You've tagged this and but it's not entirely clear what you mean.

However, by these tags, perhaps you are referring to $\left(\Bbb Z_8, +\right)$?

In such a case, you have $r_1+r_7 = 1+_8 7 = 8 \mod 8 = 0$. So there is no $r_8$ per se; however, the re-definition of the symbols $r_0, r_1, \ldots$ is superfluous.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm not sure about the tags, there wasn't one for algebra. – alan2here Aug 21 '12 at 14:09
It got re-tagged -- there is an algebra-precalculus tag that someone put there for you :) – Arkamis Aug 21 '12 at 15:16

Your Answer


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.