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?


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.