I Is this the correct way to quantify these integers?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math100
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Math100
Messages
813
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
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.
Back
Top