11
$\begingroup$

Is this considered bad style

$$2 = \sqrt{4} < \sqrt{16} = 4?$$

It seems as though this is not strictly correct, since $2 = \sqrt{4}$ is a logical proposition which represents boolean value (true or false). A boolean value cannot be less than $\sqrt{16}$.

On the other hand, I am sure that most people will correctly interpret this as shorthand for $2 = \sqrt{4},$ $\sqrt{4} < \sqrt{16},$ and $\sqrt{16} = 4$

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I use this notation, and seeing each relation was true would convince me that $2 \lt 4$. It is no worse than $\displaystyle {n \choose k}=\frac{n!}{k!(n-k)!}=\frac{n!}{(n-k)!(n-(n-k))!}= {n \choose n-k}$ $\endgroup$ – Henry Jan 1 '16 at 23:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have seen graduate-level math books do this, so I think it's quite acceptable. $\endgroup$ – vhspdfg Jan 1 '16 at 23:44
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Looking at the argument you give for your concernthe point of mixing is really a red herring. If you have $2^2 = 4 = 8/2$ then $2^2= 4$ would represent true or false which does not equal $8/2$ etc. $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 1 '16 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it's very standard throughout all the books I've read. $\endgroup$ – Daniel R. Collins Jan 2 '16 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Sam I think $2=\sqrt{4}$ is a proposition, but not itself being neither True or False. Proposition is proposition, whereas T/F is T/F. To indicate the truth value of a proposition, we use a function, called valuation function($V$), that takes the proposition to codomain $\{\mathbb{T},\mathbb{F}\}$. For example, $V(1+1=2)=\mathbb{T}$, but $1+1=2$ itself is $1+1=2$(proposition), neither $\mathbb{T}$ nor $\mathbb{F}$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Oct 8 '16 at 6:04
16
$\begingroup$

If $R_1, R_2, \ldots$ are binary relations, it is standard practice in mathematics to write:

$$a_1 \mathrel{R_1} a_2 \mathrel{R_2} a_3 \ldots a_{k} \mathrel{R_{k}} a_{k+1}$$

as a short hand for:

$$a_1 \mathrel{R_1} a_2 \mbox{ and } a_2 \mathrel{R_2} a_3 \ldots \mbox { and } a_{k} \mathrel{R_{k}} a_{k+1}$$

This convenient syntactic convention works because, in most mathematics, we usually write as if we are working in first-order logic, where boolean values aren't allowed as operands of relation symbols: $(1 < 2) = (3 < 4)$ isn't allowed. When you work in higher-order logic in mathematics, and in most programming languages, formulas like $(1 < 2) = (3 < 4)$ are allowed and so this convention doesn't work so smoothly.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ This convention is so convenient that sometimes people want to get more out of this than it actually gives. Two examples. (1) when someone writes $a\neq b\neq c\neq d$, he probably thinks having expressed all four values are distinct, but that is not so. (2) I've once seen written, for an infinite sequence $(a_i)_{i\in\Bbb N}$, the condition $a_0=a_1=a_2=\cdots=0$ (which makes no sense, since the final relation $=$ has no left operand; on the other hand $0=a_0=a_1=a_2=\cdots$ might be considered acceptable). $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Jan 2 '16 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ A notable exception on the programming front is Python, which does, for example, let w > x <= y < z be equivalent to w > x and x <= y and y < z. $\endgroup$ – wchargin Jan 2 '16 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ (This is widely considered to have been a Bad Idea precisely because of the higher-order capabilities you mention.) $\endgroup$ – wchargin Jan 2 '16 at 19:58
9
$\begingroup$

You will find such things often on this forum, and the meaning is usually clear. When I was an undergraduate we used to string $\implies$ between statements we had shown were dependent on previous statements - it was convenient shorthand rather than boolean logic.

The purpose of mathematical writing is to communicate clearly and accurately what you mean - that can depend on context and audience. If shorthand brings in an ambiguity, then write it a different way.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sometimes space is at a premium... $\endgroup$ – vonbrand Jan 2 '16 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ Chaining binary relations is so universally done that I don't think it even makes sense to call it a shorthand. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Jan 2 '16 at 12:45
8
$\begingroup$

It's fine - people write that way all the time. But don't ever do this: $$1\le b=c>d.$$


Edit: Various people have commented, saying that there's nothing wrong with the above. Perhaps not; it bothers me, but I'm not going to insist that it's wrong. If I claimed I didn't actually say it was wrong people would say I was being pedantic.

One person points out that if you write the above it certainly is wrong to deduce a relationship between $1$ and $d$. And that's the problem - in my experience in "beginning analysis" classes students who write things like what's above do tend to draw incorrect conclusions. So I'm going to just rephrase what I said: "Wrong or not, don't do that. It's a bad idea."

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think that's too strong: I would say don't write things like that unless you have a very good reason to, and then only accompanied by a careful explanation and justification. (Probably the only valid good reason would be if $b$ and/or $c$ is a very long expression, in which case there are probably better alternatives, which you will realise when you try to write the justification $\ddot{\smile}$.) $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Jan 2 '16 at 0:28
  • $\begingroup$ I would write this if you don't know if $d$ is larger or smaller than 1. However $1 \leq a, b \leq n$, while more common, can both mean that $1 \leq a$ and $b \leq n$, or that $a$ and $b$ are both in the interval $[1, n]$. $\endgroup$ – Ruben Jan 2 '16 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure there's anything wrong with $1\leq b=c>d$. The wrongness comes when you try to use those facts to assert anything about the relationship between $1$ and $d$. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Jan 2 '16 at 12:47
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRicherby, it implies that $1$ and $d$ have a common upper bound. (Not so useful for a total order, I agree ;) $\endgroup$ – Carsten S Jan 2 '16 at 19:27

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.