Indexed family? smart enuff 2b dumb enuff?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SqrachMasda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding indexed families in set theory, particularly in relation to unions and intersections. Participants express confusion over the notation and concepts introduced in their coursework, seeking clarification and simpler explanations. The scope includes conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses significant confusion regarding indexed families and set theory, particularly due to the complexity of symbols and notation.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the concept by drawing parallels between indexed sums and indexed unions, explaining the notation used for both.
  • A different participant acknowledges the similarity to summations but indicates a desire to work through a specific problem later, highlighting their struggle with the notation.
  • One participant suggests an inductive definition as an intuitive way to understand indexed families, presenting a recursive approach to the notation.
  • Another participant challenges the previous point by stating that the method only applies if the index set is well ordered and finite, indicating a limitation in the proposed approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views on how to understand indexed families and the limitations of certain approaches. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing confusion and differing interpretations of the concepts.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions about the index sets and the definitions of the symbols used, which are not fully clarified in the discussion. The complexity of notation and the participants' varying levels of understanding contribute to the ongoing confusion.

SqrachMasda
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
this seems extremely confusing to me
so if anybody understands it they're a genius to me
if anybody can dumb it down and actually explain it to me, they're GOD

it was briefly introduced in my text on about half a page and was completely confusing
the only practice problem ended in an empty set {0} which made it no help
my professor breezed through it at the end of class but was also compared it with unions and intersections which the symbols look exactly the same when humans draw it

it was way too much with way to little information
i have always had a big problem grasping set theory and proofs with such
I think because there is so many symbols I have to remember but usually just get mixed up

so, if anybody can explain this in dumb terms and then maybe relate it again in the correct terms
i will place them in a whole other level of intelligence
even if it's not important, i have to understand why i can't understand it
the only thing i picked up on from class was instead of unions and intersections with 2 or 3 sets (which i pretty much understand) it is based on that with a lot or even infinite sets
but then why so many new symbols

i'm tearing my hair out because the limited information i have is no help

i been here before so i already expect the arrogant smart people will grunt at me on this
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you know arithmetic, you can understand this.

"1 add 2" is written "1 + 2". Suppose you wish to add all the numbers from 1 to an unspecified integer N. You'd write that as 1 + ... + N. As a shorthand, you might say "sum of all k's from k=1 to k=N." Here, k denotes each number from 1 through N, taken consecutively. The standard notation for this is [itex]\sum_{k=1}^N k[/itex]. Think of the symbol [itex]\sum[/itex] as a large "plus" symbol. (Actually [itex]\sum[/itex] is the Greek letter Sigma corresponding to the Latin letter S, which is the first letter of the English word "Sum.")

Similarly for two sets S1 and S2, "S1 union S2" is written "S1 U S2." Suppose you wish to unionize all the sets from S1 to SN, where N is an unspecified integer (and each such set is being defined elsewhere). You'd write that as S1 U ... U SN. As a shorthand, you might say "union of all Sk from k=1 to k=N." Just like above, k denotes each number (index) from 1 through N, taken consecutively. The standard notation for this is [itex]\cup_{k=1}^N S_k[/itex].

Example 1: Let Sk={k}. Then [itex]\cup_{k=1}^N S_k[/itex] = {1, ..., N}.
Example 2: Let Sk={100}. Then [itex]\cup_{k=1}^N S_k[/itex] = {100}.
 
Last edited:
okay, i see how it is similar to summations...
gotta run to work
but i want to try and work out a problem from my text later tonite
if not maybe put it up here
because the notation they use is absurd to me
 
For me, the most intuitive way to understand these is from an inductive (recursive?) definition. Please excuse my notation:

Sigma(n=a->a)(f(x)) = f(a)
Sigma(n=a->b+1)(f(x)) = Sigma(n=a->b)(f(x)) + f(b+1)

Union(k=1->1)(S_k) = S_1
Union(k=1->n+1)(S_k) = Union(k=1->n)(S_k) U S_(n+1)
 
That only works if the index set is well ordered, and as written, actually a finite set.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K