0
$\begingroup$

I am writing a paper and I have an expression something like this:

$$\begin{equation} \notag x = \text{large_expression} + \begin{cases} y & \text{if } a<b \\ z & \text{if } a=b \\ \end{cases} \end{equation}$$

Will this notation be understood just as well as this more common, undoubtly correct way?

$$ x = \begin{cases} \text{large_expression} + y & \text{if } a<b \\ \text{large_expression} + z & \text{if } a=b \\ \end{cases}$$

Note that splitting up $\text{large_expression}$ and $y$/$z$ will hurt the understanding a lot, as well as break the flow of the paper.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You could make a compromise and let $x =$ large_expression $+f_{a,b}$ where $f_{a,b}$ is what it needs to be depending on $a$ and $b$ $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 16 '13 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ Can't you do "large_expression + $x$ where $x = y if...z if...$"? $\endgroup$ – DanielY Oct 16 '13 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ Ok what @TobiasKildetoft offered is simillar but better than mine. Good job :) $\endgroup$ – DanielY Oct 16 '13 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft I'm afraid that will hurt the understanding. This is for describing a cryptographic scheme, and placing $\text{large_expression}$ and $x$/$y$ further apart from eachother (by introducing another variable or function) will make it harder to see that some events are mutually exclusive, on which the security of the scheme relies. $\endgroup$ – orlp Oct 16 '13 at 8:33
  • $\begingroup$ The notation you suggest is probably also fine (at least I don't see any way it can be misunderstood). $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Oct 16 '13 at 8:36
0
$\begingroup$

Rather than indicator expressions I would suggest the equivalent but somewhat more readable (once you are used to them) Iverson brackets $$ x = \text{large_expression} + [a<b]y + [a=b]z\quad. $$ But the solution you suggested is also perfectly understandable an unambiguous, so I don't see much wrong in using it. After all the normal use of the case distinction braces is just after "$=$", which is also in the middle of a syntactic construct; I don't see a fundamental difference when using it after "$+$".

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

You could use indicator functions (see, e.g., http://www.statlect.com/indica1.htm for their usage in probability theory) and write:

large expression + $y*1_{a<b} + z*1_{a=b}$

$\endgroup$

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.