I have sets $N = \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and $M = \{1, \ldots, m\}$.

When referring to a generic element of these sets, I typically use variables $i \in N$ and $j \in M$.

Is there any standard terminology to say up-front that, unless otherwise specified, when I write something like $x_i$ I implicitly mean $x_i \ (\forall i \in N$)?


You should be wary of omitting quantifiers. It might save you writing time, but it's bad practice and can lead to ambiguous statements. For example, consider the statement:

There exists $j \in M$ such that $x_i \ne y_j$

With your convention, this could feasibly mean one of two things, namely:

  • For each $x_i$ there is some $y_j$ distinct from $x_i$
  • There is some $y_j$ which is distinct from all the $x_i$

In the case where $$N=\{1,2,3\},\ M=\{1,2\},\ x_1=1,\ x_2=2,\ x_3=3,\ y_1=1,\ y_2=2$$ the first of these statements is true and the second is false.

The only way to disambiguate between these two cases is to leave the quantifiers in the statement.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ That's a good point, and I agree with you in the general case. However, I am essentially defining a lot of values of the form $x_{i,j,k}$, and it is getting repetitive to keep saying $\forall i \in N, \forall j \in M, \forall k \in L$ after every such definition. In the cases I'm using it, I'm not ever combining $\exists$ and $\forall$, so the example you pointed out doesn't come up. $\endgroup$ – Eric Apr 9 '15 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Eric: In that case, if you're just defining terms, the context will probably speak for itself. $\endgroup$ – Clive Newstead Apr 9 '15 at 0:40

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.