Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A better way to say

  1. Apr 13, 2004 #1

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    (keeping in mind some conventional symbols are here written out in words...)

    For

    n * X + M = y

    where

    n is in N,
    X is in Z and nonnegative,
    M is in Z and nonnegative and less than n,
    and y is, of course, defined by n, X, and M

    sequence
    M_i = (n * X + i) [X = (0, 1, 2, ...)]

    where i takes, in turn, each value of M for some n (or for each n, or when n is constant, how should I say this?). So when n = 3, then M = {0, 1, 2} and M_i denotes collectively the sequences

    M_0 = ( n * X + 0 ) [X = ( 0, 1, 2, ... )]
    M_1 = ( n * X + 1 ) [X = ( 0, 1, 2, ... )]
    M_2 = ( n * X + 2 ) [X = ( 0, 1, 2, ... )],

    i.e, there is a sequence for each value, i, that M takes.

    Does a better way of saying this jump out at anyone?

    Any help will be greatly appreciated, as I am working on my own and don't know how this is conventionally expressed.

    Rachel
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2004 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Perhaps just M_i = {(n * X + i) [X = (0, 1, 2, ...)]} [i= 0, 1, 2, ...] is what you are seeking. It is understood, of course, that n is a constant.
     
  4. Apr 13, 2004 #3

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Whew, I'm so relieved that you understood what I was saying.

    As stated:

    M_i = {(n * X + i) [X = (0, 1, 2, ...)]} [i= 0, 1, 2, ...]

    would I not have to specify [i = 0, 1, 2, ..., (n-1)]

    or would adding (n-1) just be confusing/superfluous since I have already defined M as a nonegative integer less than n?

    Also,
    I will later be defining sets for each sequence of M_i,

    Let M_j be the set of all t such that t is in M_j if t is a term in sequence M_i, where j = i as i runs through M.
    (That is, there is a set M_j for EACH sequence M_i, where i takes different values. Set M_j is NOT the union of all the sequences collectively denoted by M_i. If there are n sequences, there are n sets.)

    Which of these would be preferable:

    Let set M_j = {t : t is in M_i, i = j}

    Let set M_j = {e : e = t for some t in M_i, i = j}

    Let set M_j = {e : e = t_x for some t_x in M_i, i = j}

    etc.... Should I enclose M_i in some type of bracket, ex. (M_i), to show it is a sequence? Should I include the formula for M_i?

    Or to answer all of these questions, as long is my meaning is clear, can I not be so anal? :biggrin:

    BTW, either way is fine, I'd just rather pick one and stick with it.

    Many thanks and happy thoughts
    Rachel
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A better way to say
  1. No. of ways (Replies: 1)

  2. How to say (Replies: 0)

  3. Better description (Replies: 2)

Loading...