Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

For any set $S$, $\mathcal{P}(S)$ denotes the power set of $S$ and $\emptyset \in \mathcal{P}(S)$ always holds. Essentially, I want to notate the set that equals the power set (of some $S$) but excluding the empty set. I was thinking about writing $\mathcal{P}^+$ and defining that (as $\mathcal{P}^+(S) := \mathcal{P}(S) - \emptyset = \mathcal{P}(S)\setminus \{\emptyset\}$), but this could be a common enough thing that someone already established a notation for it.

Wikipedia et al. don't mention anything, but maybe there is something nevertheless. I would prefer to use an established notation if there is one (while still defining what I mean).

share|cite|improve this question
I don’t know of any standard notation. The only notation that I’ve seen more than once (that I can recall) is $\wp^*(S)$. – Brian M. Scott Oct 26 '12 at 15:02

I am not aware of any such notation (and in the business of choice functions, one runs a lot into $\mathcal P(S)\setminus\{\varnothing\}$).

It is fine to make your own, but be sure to be consistent about it, and to define it at the beginning of your work.

There is a risk of having too many notations, it may burden the reader. Sometimes just writing it explicitly works just as well. If you're tired of doing that, write a LaTeX macro.

share|cite|improve this answer
I already wrote a LaTeX macro with a provisional $P^+$, and I am aware that too much definitions could burden the reader, but thanks for the advice, anyway :) – bitmask Oct 26 '12 at 15:01

I would suggest using something close to standard notation, e.g. $\mathcal{P}_{\lt \omega}(X)$ or $[X]^{\lt \omega}$ is used for the set of finite subsets of $X$, so why not $\mathcal{P}_{\geq 1}(X)$ or $[X]^{\geq 1}$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Actually, $\mathcal P_\omega(X)$ is the set of all finite subsets. See the common notation $\mathcal P_\kappa(\lambda)$ in the context of supercompact measures. – Asaf Karagila Oct 26 '12 at 15:03
I tend to write $S_{fin}$ for finite sets. That is an established notation in this field. – bitmask Oct 26 '12 at 15:06

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.