2
$\begingroup$

Is there any notation that can represent any member of a particular set? For example, how could I say that I want any real number, or any imaginary number?

I do know there is a symbol to denote "for all", $\forall \Re$, but I don't want that. I want to express that for example that a operation will return any member of the real set.

Is there such a notation?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If the operation $f$ takes elements of set $A$ as its inputs and always returns an elements of set $B$ as its outputs, one usually writes $f:A\to B$ to indicate this. So if $a\in A$, then $f(a)\in B$ (whatever it is). Of course, this doesn't specify the precise rule of assignment, so it is assumed that you have some particular rule in mind. $\endgroup$ – MPW Sep 7 '16 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MPW I know that too. What i want is for example when defining a matrix. if $i \geq j$, $a_{ij}= $ any member of $\Re$. Else $a_{ij}= 0$. It's strange. My teacher simply did $a_{ij} = \forall$ but I'm pretty sure that's not the right notation. $\endgroup$ – ChemiCalChems Sep 7 '16 at 13:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can't you just use $a_{i j}\in \mathbb{R}$ then? $\endgroup$ – simonzack Sep 7 '16 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @simonzack Didn't think about that. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – ChemiCalChems Sep 7 '16 at 14:53
0
$\begingroup$

This concept has been used extensively before, I believe it was introduced by Hilbert as the ε-operator in a logical calculus called the ε-calculus. The syntax is $ε\ x\ A(x)$ or $ε\ x.A(x)$ which mean any $x$ satisfying the property $A$. In your case the property you are using is the membership in a set, so you would write $ε\ x.x \in A$ (though I'm not sure if this was allowed in the original calculus). The ε-operator is also used in some formal proof systems, such as HOL (Higher Order Logic).

See also the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So if I understand correctly $\varepsilon x, x \in \Re$ would mean any x such that it belongs to the real numbers? That's nice! $\endgroup$ – ChemiCalChems Sep 7 '16 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ yes, that's right. Also, the quantifiers $\forall$ and $\exists$ can be defined in terms of the ε-operator. $\endgroup$ – fairflow Sep 8 '16 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ If you wanted to ensure that your matrix entries were positive on and above the diagonal, for example, you could use $ε\ x. x > 0$ for each element. In some versions of the ε-calculus, this would ensure all entries are equal (axiom of universal choice), in others this would not be guaranteed. $\endgroup$ – fairflow Sep 8 '16 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ correction: since $z=z$ for every $z$, $ε\,x.x>0=ε\,x.x>0$ so all your entries would be the same; it is only if you used another relation equivalent but not equal to $>$ that you might not have equal elements. $\endgroup$ – fairflow Sep 8 '16 at 9:18
  • $\begingroup$ @ChemiCalChems if you like my answer, you may consider accepting it if no other answers are forthcoming. $\endgroup$ – fairflow Sep 8 '16 at 9:20

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.