Finding Range of Set: Notation & Shorthand

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a concise notation for representing the range of a set of numbers, specifically the difference between the maximum and minimum values. Participants explore various notational conventions and shorthand that could simplify the expression of this concept.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks if there is a shorthand notation for the range of a set, suggesting an expression like \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 ,\ldots ,t_n } \right\}|_{\min }^{\max }.
  • Another participant provides links to external resources about order statistics and statistical range, implying these might contain relevant notational conventions.
  • Some participants express frustration over the misunderstanding of the term "range," clarifying that their primary concern is finding a better notation rather than the definition itself.
  • A participant proposes that the range could be denoted as {R} \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 ,\ldots ,t_n } \right\}, questioning its correctness.
  • It is noted that the range can also be expressed as R = max_j(t_j) - min_j(t_j), which is similar to the longer form but uses subscripts for clarity.
  • Another suggestion includes using order statistics notation, such as t(n:n) - t(1:n) or t(n) - t(1), as a more compact representation.
  • A separate notation question arises regarding the understanding of \mathbb{Q}^ + as referring to the set of all positive rationals, with some participants affirming that similar notation applies to positive reals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best notation for representing the range, with no consensus reached on a singular shorthand. Additionally, there is a separate discussion about the notation for positive rationals, which also lacks a definitive agreement.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference external sources for notation conventions, but the discussion remains focused on personal interpretations and preferences without resolving the notational ambiguity.

bomba923
Messages
759
Reaction score
0
*Suppose I want to find the range of the set [tex]\left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/tex], that is, the difference between the maximum and minimum values (of the elements that is!) in the set.

Do I have to fully write out,
[tex]\max \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\} - \min \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/tex]

Or is there some nice shorthand/other notation to use ?
Maybe something like
[tex]\left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}|_{\min }^{\max }[/tex] ??

*Is there any symbol/notation/shorthand available to represent a set's range?
(b/c writing out [itex]\max \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\} - \min \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/itex] is quite tedious:redface:!)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know what range means, mr. iNCREDiBLE ...
(that's not the problem)

I just need a better notation for it!

From reading those pages, I suppose the notation would be
[tex]{R} \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/tex] ?

Am I correct ?
 
Last edited:
bomba923 said:
I know what range means, mr. iNCREDiBLE ...
(that's not the problem)

I just need a better notation for it!

From reading those pages, I suppose the notation would be
[tex]{R} \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/tex] ?

Am I correct ?

I know that you know what it means, mr. bomba923. I'm just trying to help you.
It says clearly that the range is denoted as [tex]R = max_j(t_j) - min_j(t_j)[/tex].
 
iNCREDiBLE said:
It says clearly that the range is denoted as [tex]R = max_j(t_j) - min_j(t_j)[/tex].

Which pretty much is the same as..
bomba923 said:
[tex]\max \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\} - \min \left\{ {t_1 ,t_2 , \ldots ,t_n } \right\}[/tex]
Except for the subscripts identifying which variable is considered for maximums/minimums and that the sets are written in condensed form :cool:
 
Using "order stats" notation, you could write t(n:n) - t(1:n), could even write t(n) - t(1). Or you could type "XYZ" for range and then do a search-and-replace with the correct notation.
 
Hey, um, just one more notation question:
*Is it generally understood that [tex]\mathbb{Q}^ +[/tex] refers to the set of all positive rationals?
(just like [itex]\mathbb{R}^ +[/itex] refers to the set of all positive reals)

Right?
 
I am not a mathematician by trade, but I have seen both R+ and R+ to refer to positive reals; so by extrapolation I guess same notation would hold for Q as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
969
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K