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

Is there an abbreviation for "almost all $x\in X$?

I have "$\forall a.e. x\in X$" in my mind, but i see nobody uses this..

share|cite|improve this question
Although the standard is "a.e", I've heard that some people used to use "p.p.", which stands for the French "presque partout" - "almost everywhere". – Isaac Solomon Jan 15 '13 at 5:03
I would find $\forall a.e.$ confusing as $\forall$ by itself denotes "for all." Hence $\forall a.e.$ would seem to denote "for all almost every." I think a.e. is a good abbreviation, and artificially defining another abbreviation seems not worth the trouble. Writing "For almost every" is painless and avoids abbreviations (and hence any confusion). – JavaMan Jan 15 '13 at 5:09
Not attempting to answer the question, but commenting on-topic: I've always liked the visual information quickly conveyed by $\forall$ (something the phrase "for all" just can't do), so in my own notes I've started using $\stackrel{a.}{\forall}$ – Dahn Jahn Jan 15 '13 at 9:08
I myself have used: "for a.a. $x\in X$" or "for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in X$" to emphasize which measure it is with respect to. – Stefan Hansen Jan 15 '13 at 9:18
You could write $\forall ^\mu x \in X,$ or even $\forall x \in (X,\mu)$. Arguably, the "correct" definition of universal quantification in a measure space is the a.e. version. – goblin Jun 21 '14 at 8:08
up vote 8 down vote accepted

You can use $\mu$-a.e $x\in X$ (because depends on measure).

share|cite|improve this answer
I write this as a.e. $[\mu]$. – mrf Jan 15 '13 at 9:02
And probabilists write $\mu$-a.s. (almost surely). – Michael Greinecker Jan 15 '13 at 9:31


"we say P(x) for a.a. x in X, standing for almost all x in X."

Of course, this is just something somebody said, not a well-accepted textbook. There is however, this very official-looking index for an unknown math text on MIT Press's website:

share|cite|improve this answer

It's common to see things like if $\int_a^b |f|dx=0$ then for a.e. $x \in [a,b]$ we have $f(x)=0$. I've never seen the notation $\forall a.e. x \in X$ personally. Of course it's also not too many characters to write out for almost every $x \in X$.

share|cite|improve this answer

The book RussH linked to says $\dot\forall x \in X$, written \dot\forall x in TeX math mode.

'Optimal Control Theory with Applications in Economics', by Weber, Appendix A. Thanks RussH!

I'm coming to this question with a density $f(\cdot)$, so I don't want to use $\mu$-a.e. $x \in X$. That would require stating that the measure induced by the density is called $\mu(\cdot)$. But $\dot{\forall}x$ is (by default) with respect to Lebesgue measure, which works for my purposes. Using words also doesn't really fit well into e.g. the LaTeX align environment.

edit: I guess one could also introduce $\mu$ as Lebesgue measure, which would amount to the same thing.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.