Home work with set builder notation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around converting the specific set of numbers (2, 5, 10, 17) into set builder notation. Participants explore the underlying pattern of the sequence and the appropriateness of using set builder notation for a small set of numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in expressing the set (2, 5, 10, 17) in set builder notation, noting the addition of odd numbers to generate the sequence.
  • Another participant suggests checking the changing difference between consecutive terms to find a formula.
  • A different viewpoint argues that using set builder notation for such a small set is pointless, providing a general structure for set builder notation and an example with prime numbers.
  • One participant humorously presents alternative "silly" set builder notations, including a polynomial representation and a direct enumeration of the set.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about converting the set into set builder notation but describes a potential pattern involving summation and a formula for generating the terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to express the set in set builder notation. Multiple competing views and methods are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the completeness of the pattern based on the limited number of terms provided. The appropriateness of set builder notation for small sets is also debated.

kkp
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ok, I am needing help turning (2, 5, 10, 17) into set builder notation. I know to get these you add odd numbers 3, 5, 7 but I can't wrap my mind around putting this into notation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In other words, you are looking for a formula. Check for a changing difference between consecutive terms.
 
It's pretty pointless to use set builder notation for such a small set. (Homework always seems that way, doesn't it?)

Keep in mind that set builder notation is of the form

{expression | for <variable(s)> in {a bigger set} such that <condition>}

Here, you're working with integers, so the "bigger set" is going to be Z or Z+ or something.

The tricky part is figuring out a useful condition. For example, if your set was {2, 3, 5, 7, 11}, you could have said: {x | x in Z+ where x is prime and x <= 11}.
 
This question is silly. Here are some equally silly answers.

\{n | n\in\{2, 5, 10, 17\}\}
\{n | (n-2)(n-5)(n-10)(n-17)=0\}
\{n^2+1 | 1\le n\le4\}

The polynomial in the second answer can be rewritten as n^4 - 34n^3 + 369n^2 - 1460n + 1700, if you prefer.
 
Last edited:
How exactly to convert this into set builder notation, not sure; but I did some checking on the sequence of numbers.

The first term is obviously just 2.
After that, the next terms conform to 2 plus the sumation as index goes from 2 to i of three plus two times the expression (n-2);

In other words, I'm saying from the second term onward, the term is
2 + summation from 2 to i of (3 + 2(n-2)).

Some variation from that pattern might be possible (not sure) after n=4, since we might not be sure if only four terms as originally given were enough to build the pattern.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K