0
$\begingroup$

I was trying to write a sequence of two different elements (that always appear in order) with a fixed last element, for an example: $A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2, A_3, B_3, A_4$. I'm not sure which would be the best way to explain and represent this situation.

The best that I reached was: $\Gamma = \langle (A_{i},B_{i})_{i=1}^{n},A_{n+1} \rangle$. But I'm not sure if this notation is correct because it is actually a sequence of ordered pairs with a last element (that is not an ordered pair).

So, I'm asking you, is it a valid way to represent what I want? If not, which would be the best way to write that?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I think you can safely go with something simple: $$A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2, \dotsc, A_n, B_n, A_{n+1}.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hum, it makes sense. Why simplify when we can complicate :D. My only doubt is, with this notation, could I have a sequence with only 3 elements? A1,B1,A2? Or since I have the n>1 I would need at least 5 elements? $\endgroup$ – copenhagen Dec 14 '13 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Andre, you could clarify with "for $n\ge 1$" or something. Mathematical notation doesn't necessarily stand on its own. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Dec 14 '13 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ Sure. Let's say, if I define the sequence as $A_1,B_1,...,A_n,B_n,A_{n+1}$, $n$ will need to be greater than one, naturally. What I'm asking is if with this definition the sequence $A_1,B_1,A_2$ would be valid (because in this case I would not have any possible element as $A_n$ or $B_n$). $\endgroup$ – copenhagen Dec 14 '13 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Andre, I understand your concern. On the other hand, using too few terms can be confusing in some cases. If you explicitly set the lower bound for $n$ that you want, I think whoever reads it will understand that if $n=1$ then the $A_2$ and $B_2$ terms will be dropped. In fact, if you were to write "for $n\ge 0$", then they would understand that if $n=0$ then the sequence will have no terms. $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Dec 14 '13 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ First, thanks for your help. My concern actually is with the $A_n$ and $B_n$ terms that I need to keep in the definition. If I put "for $n \geq 0$" then a sequence $A_1,B_2,A_0,B_0,A_1$ would be valid. But I don't see a way to create a definition that could accept the $A_1,B_1,A_2$ sequence (since I can have a sequence with only 3 elements) and also be generic for other cases. Maybe $\langle A_i,B_i,A_{n+1} \rangle_{i=1}^{n}$ ? $\endgroup$ – copenhagen Dec 14 '13 at 7:00

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.