1
$\begingroup$

Are these two ways to define a set both correct?

$$\{Z_t|Z_t \in A_5 \& Z_t=Z_i \cap Z_k, Z_i \in A_2, Z_k\in A_3\}$$

and the same written in this way:

$$\{Z_t|Z_t \in A_5 \& (\exists Z_i \in A_2)(\exists Z_k \in A_3)(Z_t=Z_i \cap Z_k)\}$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm bad with notation so I was curious also about the answer. Generally if you vote a question down like that you should give an indication as to why. $\endgroup$ – nick Dec 16 '14 at 21:46
1
$\begingroup$

If you connect two logical statements, you must use the according logical operators.

Usually, you do not write a $\&$, but rather a $\wedge$. Although one may use a separation by commas I prefer also using the logical conjunction $\wedge$. Another optional thing is writing the main Set the elements are contained in before the bar.

But a major issue is using $Z_t$ and $Z_k$ before defining them or using them with a quantor:

As far as I did not misunderstand anything, it should be $$ \{ Z_t\in A_5 | \exists Z_i\in A_2 \exists Z_k \in A_3:Z_t=Z_i \cap Z_k \} $$

Which would be more like your second approach.

The major scheme is $\{ x| A(x)\}$ where $A(x)$ is a predicate (See here), which is, roughly said, a logical expression varying under a given parameter. It can be extended to $\{x\in M|A(x)\}:=\{x|x\in M \wedge A(x)\}$

I recommend to you learning about the basics of mathematical logic and its notation, which should help you formulate such statements correctly. A first googling (I recommend “[search terms] filetype:pdf” for pdf documents) gets me this which seems quite good as an introduction.

And to the community, I do not understand why one would vote that question down. Although the content is incorrect, it was the actual question whether it is correct.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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