0
$\begingroup$

I have a bunch of component cost functions $C_g(x)$ and an aggregate cost function which is defined as a weighted sum of components $\sum_{g=1}^G \omega_g C_g(x)$. Currently I write $\mathcal{C}(x) = \sum_{g=1}^G \omega_g C_g(x)$. Sure, I didn't need to use $\mathcal{C}$. I could have used anything, $f,g,$ etc. But I like that $\mathcal{C}$ suggests to the reader that there's a relationship between it and and the family of component functions $C_g$.

Question: is there a better way to indicate a function is an aggregate of a family of sub-functions? If no standard, maybe someone has seen an alternative? Maybe there's an approach out there preferred to using \mathcal as I've done above?

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.