2
$\begingroup$

Between these two options, is there a best practice notation for enumeration or are they both equivalently acceptable: \begin{equation} \forall i = 0,1,\dots,n-1 \qquad (1) \end{equation} \begin{equation} \forall i \in \{0,1,\dots,n-1\} \qquad (2) \end{equation}

Thank you for your answers.

NS

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, any relation with the English chess grandmaster? $\endgroup$ – Tal-Botvinnik May 16 '18 at 12:19
1
$\begingroup$

Both notations see widespread use in the literature. The second version has the downside of being slightly more cumbersome to write down (and to typeset using $\LaTeX$) but it offers the advantage of being more versatile (in that it carries over to any, potentially infinite, index set) and, arguably, more formal.

In the end, I don't see a striking advantage of either notation and I don't think anyone would be confused even if you mixed and matched it at will.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

In my personal opinion, both are OK, but the $\forall$ sign is reduntant. I'd rather write

"for $i=0,\dots,n$".

$\endgroup$

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.