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


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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


    n * X + M = y


    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

    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2004 #2


    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


    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?

    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
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)