Notation for extracting value out of single element set
In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set
$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = { text{complicated expression here using $a$} }
$$
Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = { x }$.
So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element ${ x } subset B$. Something like
$$unset(S(a))$$
where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.
elementary-set-theory notation
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
add a comment |
In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set
$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = { text{complicated expression here using $a$} }
$$
Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = { x }$.
So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element ${ x } subset B$. Something like
$$unset(S(a))$$
where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.
elementary-set-theory notation
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
1
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago
add a comment |
In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set
$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = { text{complicated expression here using $a$} }
$$
Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = { x }$.
So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element ${ x } subset B$. Something like
$$unset(S(a))$$
where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.
elementary-set-theory notation
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set
$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = { text{complicated expression here using $a$} }
$$
Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = { x }$.
So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element ${ x } subset B$. Something like
$$unset(S(a))$$
where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.
elementary-set-theory notation
elementary-set-theory notation
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
asked 2 days ago
Siddharth Bhat
2,8481918
2,8481918
1
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago
1
1
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup {x}=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)
Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:
We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.
There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
It is just the union:
$$bigcup S(a) = bigcup{x} = x$$
Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text{ such that } c in D$$
For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup {A,B}$.
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
add a comment |
Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hat{a}$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056308%2fnotation-for-extracting-value-out-of-single-element-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup {x}=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)
Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:
We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.
There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup {x}=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)
Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:
We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.
There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup {x}=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)
Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:
We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.
There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup {x}=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)
Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:
We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.
There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
answered 2 days ago
Eric Wofsey
180k12206333
180k12206333
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup {3}$ possibly mean?
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@MPW Remember that $2={{},{{}}}$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup{3}$" is by definition ${x: xin 2$ or $xin{3}}$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just ${3}$. :P
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that ${xmid xin y}$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
– MPW
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
@MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
– Noah Schweber
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
It is just the union:
$$bigcup S(a) = bigcup{x} = x$$
Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text{ such that } c in D$$
For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup {A,B}$.
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
add a comment |
It is just the union:
$$bigcup S(a) = bigcup{x} = x$$
Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text{ such that } c in D$$
For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup {A,B}$.
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
add a comment |
It is just the union:
$$bigcup S(a) = bigcup{x} = x$$
Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text{ such that } c in D$$
For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup {A,B}$.
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
It is just the union:
$$bigcup S(a) = bigcup{x} = x$$
Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text{ such that } c in D$$
For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup {A,B}$.
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
answered 2 days ago
mechanodroid
26.2k62245
26.2k62245
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
1
1
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
– Eric Wofsey
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
@EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$text{unset}$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = {x}$ and then just use $x$.
– mechanodroid
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
– Siddharth Bhat
2 days ago
add a comment |
Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hat{a}$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
add a comment |
Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hat{a}$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
add a comment |
Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hat{a}$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hat{a}$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
answered 2 days ago
MPW
29.8k12056
29.8k12056
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056308%2fnotation-for-extracting-value-out-of-single-element-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If $S(a) ={x}$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and ${x}$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
– littleO
2 days ago