3
$\begingroup$

I was wondering if someone could clarify this for me. In my lecture notes my lecturer keeps writing "Let $\{\textbf{v}_1,\ldots, \textbf{v}_n\}\in \mathbb{R}^m$ be a collection of vectors $\dots$" and was wondering if this isn't an abuse of notation since each $\textbf{v}_i\in \mathbb{R}^m$ and thus $\{\textbf{v}_1,\ldots, \textbf{v}_n\}\subset \mathbb{R}^m$ as this set itself is not an element of $\mathbb{R}^m$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it's an abuse of notation (for the reason you gave). $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer♦ Mar 22 '14 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ Too much abuse, to be honest. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 22 '14 at 15:40
2
$\begingroup$

Yes, that is abuse of (at least sloppy) notation, for exactly the reasons you gave. Especially so with the set clammers. It would be a lot more acceptable with the more normal:

$$v_1, \dots, v_n \in \Bbb R^n$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This even has less characters, no reason not to use this over the other one. $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Mar 22 '14 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another reason for not writing the set brackets is that one often doesn't want to exclude the possibility that some of the $v_i$s are equal. $\endgroup$ – hmakholm left over Monica Mar 22 '14 at 16:11

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.