I Is this the correct way to quantify these integers?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct quantification of integers a, b, c, and d to indicate that they cannot be zero. The proposed notation, "∀ a, b, c, d ∈ ℤ - {0}", is deemed non-standard but effective for conveying the intended meaning. Participants agree that clarity for the reader is paramount, even if the notation isn't conventional. Alternative expressions, such as "{ a, b, c, d } ⊆ ℤ - { 0 }", are also suggested for precision. Overall, the focus is on ensuring that the representation accurately communicates the non-zero condition for the integers.
Math100
Messages
816
Reaction score
229
TL;DR Summary
I just have this random question and I was wondering if the following quantifier below is correct to represent/symbolize nonzero integers ## a, b, c, d ##:
## \forall a, b, c, d\in\mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0} ##
Does the above quantifier represent/symbolize that all of the integers ## a, b, c, d ## cannot be ## 0 ##? Is this correct?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It is non-standard, but all that really matters is that the reader understands what you mean. I think they will.
If you want to write it perfectly correctly you could write:
$$\forall a,b,c,d\in \mathbb Z - \{0\}$$
 
  • Like
Likes Mark44, Math100 and topsquark
Math100 said:
TL;DR Summary: I just have this random question and I was wondering if the following quantifier below is correct to represent/symbolize nonzero integers ## a, b, c, d ##:
## \forall a, b, c, d\in\mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0} ##

Does the above quantifier represent/symbolize that all of the integers ## a, b, c, d ## cannot be ## 0 ##? Is this correct?
Or, perhaps ##\{ a, b, c, d \} \subset \mathbb{Z} - \{ 0 \}##

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS and Math100
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top