Notation for Lists in Math: Symbol, LaTeX

  • Thread starter Thread starter HJ Farnsworth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    List Notation
HJ Farnsworth
Messages
126
Reaction score
1
Greetings,

Is there a commonly accepted notation for a list in mathematics, of an identical form to Ʃ for a summation? If so, what is the name of the symbol (that would be used in place of L, below), and how would it be typed in LaTeX?

For instance, it might look something like,

L^{1}_{n}Ai\equivA1,A2,...,An,

except that the 1 and the n on the LHS would be directly below and above the L, as they would be with Ʃ for a summation.

Obviously, this is not a critical issue, but I often run into situations where that notation would be convenient and cleaner than writing a full list or ...'s all of the time...

Thanks for any help you can give.

-HJ Farnsworth
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
##\{A_i\}_{i=1}^n##

or ##\{A_i\}_{i\in I}## for some index set I (provided I is defined)

or just "##A_i## for ##i = 1, \ldots, n##"
 
Perfect, thank you very much.

-HJ Farnsworth
 
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