0
$\begingroup$

I've used the following notation in a report:

$G\boldsymbol{w}\in\mathcal{H}_2\,\forall\boldsymbol{w}\in\mathcal{H}_2 $

In other words $G$ projects $\boldsymbol{w}$ back into the same set. But this notation doesn't feel right. Is this correct or could somebody suggest better / clearer / more appropriate notation?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $G:H_2\to H_2 $? $\endgroup$ – TZakrevskiy Mar 19 '14 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ @TZakrevskiy is that not then a definition, rather than a single rule? $G$ is not limited to the elements of $\mathcal{H}_2$. $\endgroup$ – oLas Mar 19 '14 at 16:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that as long as the statement of this property is clear and concise, it is ok. Another option would be to write $G(\mathcal H_2)\subset \mathcal H_2$ or say "$G$ is an endomorphism on $\mathcal H_2$", or "$G\in\mathcal L (\mathcal H_2)$", or something else. Though personally I prefer the way you wrote it. $\endgroup$ – TZakrevskiy Mar 19 '14 at 17:33
0
$\begingroup$

I collect three common options, ranked by my own preference.

  1. $G(\mathcal H_2)\subseteq \mathcal H_2$
  2. $G(w) \in \mathcal H_2$ whenever $w\in \mathcal H_2$
  3. $G:\mathcal H_2\to \mathcal H_2$
$\endgroup$

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.