5
$\begingroup$

I have a vector $\mathbf{x} = (x_1,x_2)$, how do I represent the array of such vector?

Is it $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbf{X}$ where $\mathbf{X}$ = $\bigcup _{{1}}^{k}\mathbf{x}^s$ for $s \in (1,..k)$ length of $k$ vectors? Something seems off here!

Also I want to index a vector in array then is this correct way to represent the index ${\mathbf{x}^1}$? and the corresponding dimensional representation of this index shall be $(x_1^1,x_2^1)$?

Is the usage of "hat" appropriate here ? such as "$\hat{x}$"?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure if by "array of vectors" you intend a single row with the vectors listed, or if you mean a rectangular array with the components as entries or what. But I think the most common thing one would do in a situation like this is to put them in a rectangular matrix and use double indices.

That is, you would have $m$ vectors with $n$ components that look like $(x_{i,1}, \ldots, x_{i, n})$ for $i\in \{1\ldots m\}$, so that the rows of your matrix are the original $n$-tuples.

I have no idea why one would use a hat decorator in this case.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ By array of vectors I mean $[\mathbf{x_i}]$ for $i \in \{1,..,m\}$ so its not rectangular matrix, just vector listed. So will the expanded form be $[(x_{1,i},x_{2,i})]$ $i \in \{1,..,m\}$ ? $\endgroup$ – user0193 Sep 30 '20 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ I can think of no better way to write the concatenation as $(x_{1,1},\ldots, x_{1, n},x_{2,1},\ldots x_{2, n},\ldots,x_{m, 1},\ldots x_{m, n})$, or maybe just as $(\mathbf{x_1},\dots,\mathbf{x_m})$ where $\mathbf {x_i}=(x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,n})$ $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Sep 30 '20 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ noted. Thanks and also does this makes sense $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbf{X}$ where $\bigcup _{{1}}^{k}\mathbf{x}^s$ for $s i\in \{1\ldots k\}$? $\endgroup$ – user0193 Sep 30 '20 at 19:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JhonnyS I think using $\bigcup$ is wildly confusing and not helpful. I'm not sure what's out there in terms of a symbol for a concatenation operation, but almost anything is better than $\bigcup$. Even something like $\boxplus$. At any rate you would have to explain that's what you meant, since the notation might not be common. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Sep 30 '20 at 20:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JhonnyS I can see where you're coming from, but for the sanity of the people listening to you, don't call $X$ a set and don't use $\bigcup$. Use something that suggests appending more, like $\oplus$ or $\boxplus$. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Sep 30 '20 at 20:36

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.