Confused by Metric Space Notation: What Does It Mean?

rethipher
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
I have a simple question about the notation. I want to be more correct with notation, I don't understand exactly what the notation is saying.

In regards to a Metric space

A metric space is an ordered pair (M,d) where M is a set and d is a metric on M, i.e., a function

{{\bf{d: M \times M}}} (the syntax here)

such that for any x,y,z \in \bf{M} (and the e looking symbol)

Does the times symbol in the first part indicate an M by M matrix, how would this be read. And the e symbol which I don't know the name of, I believe is akin to saying all numbers in, or every set in the space, or something roughly like that. So, how would I read the whole thing given the mathematical statement as written above if there was no explanation surrounding it? I have a lot of trouble reading pure math books sometimes because I don't understand a lot of the simple notation, even though I've seen the material before. I don't necessarily know how to represent the statement mathematically, for instance if I wanted to say something like a function that takes all real numbers as arguments, or considering all real numbers.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
rethipher said:
I have a simple question about the notation. I want to be more correct with notation, I don't understand exactly what the notation is saying.

First thing I want to say, is congrats. Notation is something a lot of students underestimate, so I applaud you on this.

In regards to a Metric space

A metric space is an ordered pair (M,d) where M is a set and d is a metric on M, i.e., a function

{{\bf{d: M \times M}}} (the syntax here)

such that for any x,y,z \in \bf{M} (and the e looking symbol)

Does the times symbol in the first part indicate an M by M matrix, how would this be read. And the e symbol which I don't know the name of, I believe is akin to saying all numbers in, or every set in the space, or something roughly like that. So, how would I read the whole thing given the mathematical statement as written above if there was no explanation surrounding it? I have a lot of trouble reading pure math books sometimes because I don't understand a lot of the simple notation, even though I've seen the material before. I don't necessarily know how to represent the statement mathematically, for instance if I wanted to say something like a function that takes all real numbers as arguments, or considering all real numbers.

The times symbol, when used with sets, is called the Cartesian product. If you don't know set theory, then treat it as "d is a function of two variables, both chosen from M"

The e symbol is the "element of" symbol. ##x \in X## means that X is a set, and x is a member (element) of that set. For example, if X is the set denoting the integers, then x is an integer.
 
My recommendation to you is to first read a book on basic set theory before dealing with metric spaces. A book like "How to prove it" by Velleman should suit your purposes (although it contains much more material than is necessary).
 
Thank you for the clear explanation, it is definitely helpful. My concern with the importance of notation stems more from me being easily confused by ambiguous notation and unclear notation than anything else.

Also, I looked up the set theory book, and it wasn't very expensive to get a used older version of it from 1994, so i went ahead and bought it. Thank you! I was having trouble finding set theory material to study because it seems like there is a large amount of set theory out there, and since it is used in basically every branch of mathematics, it's everywhere.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
978
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top