7
$\begingroup$

To denote non-empty subsets, I repeatedly find myself writing $A\subset S, A\neq \emptyset$. Is there any established shorthand for this, you know, like $A\subset S$ can be seen as a shorthand for $A\subseteq S, A\neq S$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But it’s not the same?! $\endgroup$
    – Ronny
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree, it is certainly related (see goblin's answer), but not exactly the same thing. $\endgroup$
    – user32849
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 19:28

4 Answers 4

3
$\begingroup$

Try $\emptyset \neq A \subset S$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't like this kind of thing (not downvoting or anything, just expressing my opinion). There's nothing more confusing than reading: "Now consider $\emptyset \neq A \subset S$." $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Actually I agree. Personally whenever possible I prefer sentences: "Let $A$ be a nonempty subset of $S$." $\endgroup$
    – polmath
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 22:20
3
$\begingroup$

If I recall correctly, $A \in \mathcal{P}_{\geq 1}(S)$ is somewhat standard notation for "$A$ is a non-empty subset of $S$."

More generally, I think that $\mathcal{P}_{\geq \kappa}(S)$ is sometimes used to denote the collection of all subsets of $S$ with cardinality greater than or equal to $\kappa.$

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But it’s harder to read like $\subset$ … $\endgroup$
    – Ronny
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ronny, I know what you mean. Another option would be: "Consider non-empty $A \subseteq S$." $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that wouldn't work in, say, indexing sets using a summation sign like $\sum_{A\subset S} f(A)$. $\endgroup$
    – user32849
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 19:30
2
$\begingroup$

Define $A \subset_\emptyset B \Leftrightarrow (A \subset B \wedge A \neq \emptyset)$. Then use $\subset_\emptyset$ instead of $\subset$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I am aware of such possibilities. I was just wondering if there was some established standard of doing that, you know, $\subset$ with a dot in it or something. $\endgroup$
    – user32849
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, okay, not as far as I know – sorry. $\endgroup$
    – Ronny
    Commented Oct 21, 2014 at 17:27
1
$\begingroup$

Probably not, notations differ from author to author. Not even $A\subset S$ is unambiguous - it can mean proper subset or just subset. This means that if you're going to use a shorthand notation you would probably need to define the meaning of it. The mentioned $\mathcal P_{\ge 1}$ for example is nothing I've encountered, and the same applies to $\subseteq_{\emptyset}$.

Like it or not the notation $\emptyset\ne A\subset S$ or even $A\subset S, A\ne0$ is the closest thing to something that would be immediately understood and it's almost as compact as $A\subset_{\emptyset}S$, or $A\in\mathcal P_{\ge1}(S)$.

Normally you would have it in text and then you could write it out "non-empty $A\subset S$". As pointed out you should consider the context in the case as well. If you want to use $\emptyset\ne A\subset S$ you should use it in a context that calls for a statement, for example "assume that $\emptyset\ne A\subset S$".

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .