0
$\begingroup$

How can I rewrite $$ F = F_1 \cup \bigcup_{i=2}^{n \geq2} \left( F_i \cap \bigcap_{j=1}^{i-1} S_j \right) $$ without explicitly writing $F_1$?

Assume \begin{align} F_i \cap S_i &= \emptyset \\ \bigcup_{i=1}^n F_i \cup S_i &\subset \mathbb{R}^m. \end{align}

For example, if $n=3$, then $$ F = (F_1) \cup (F_2 \cap S_1) \cup (F_3 \cap S_1 \cap S_2). $$

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What space are you working on? are there relations between $F_i$ and $S_i$? $\endgroup$ – macton Jan 22 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @macton, I'm working on $\mathbb{R}^m$. One relation is that $F_i \cap S_i = \emptyset$. Another is $\bigcup_{i \in n} F_i \cup S_i \subset \mathbb{R}^m$, i.e. it doesn't constitute of partition of $\mathbb{R^m}$. $\endgroup$ – cisprague Jan 22 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ You need to get rid of the $\ge 2$ in the upper limit on the union: that’s an external condition on $n$ that has no place in the union notation. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 22 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ @BrianM.Scott, how should it be expressed then? $\endgroup$ – cisprague Jan 23 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ @ChristopherIliffeSprague: In a separate statement, something like this: Let $S_0=X$; then for $n\ge 2$ we have $$F=\bigcup_{i=1}^n\left(F_i\cap\bigcap_{j=0}^{i-1}S_j\right)\,.$$ $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Jan 23 at 21:47
0
$\begingroup$

If you are working in a whole space called $X$, let's say, then define $$ S_0 = X $$ then clearly $$ F_1 = F_1 \bigcap S_0 $$ and $$ F_i \cap \bigcap_{j=1}^{i-1} S_j =F_i \cap \bigcap_{j=1}^{i-1} S_j \bigcap S_0 = F_i \cap \bigcap_{j=0}^{i-1} S_j $$ so we can rewrite it as $$F = \bigcup_{i=1}^{n \geq2} \left( F_i \cap \bigcap_{j=0}^{i-1} S_j \right)$$ well it's a little bit cheating by introducing new variable but it works.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. This is out of the scope, but, should $S_0 = X$ be changed to $S_0 := X$, or perhaps $S_0 \triangleq X$? $\endgroup$ – cisprague Jan 26 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ @ChristopherIliffeSprague It's a personal preference. For me I've explicitly said "define" before that line, so it should be not that confusing. I use $:=$ only when I want to emphasis that definition. $\endgroup$ – macton Jan 26 at 15:52

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.