Punctuation in mathematical writing

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematical Writing
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of punctuation in mathematical writing, specifically focusing on the necessity and correctness of commas in a given mathematical sentence. Participants explore the implications of punctuation on clarity and readability in mathematical expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about their punctuation in mathematical writing and seeks feedback on the use of commas in a specific sentence.
  • Another participant, who is new to writing proofs, finds the punctuation acceptable but does not provide a strong opinion.
  • A later reply suggests that the commas are helpful for indicating natural pauses in reading, emphasizing the importance of readability.
  • There is a discussion about whether to use "where" or "with" in the context of the mathematical statement, with some preferring "where" for clarity.
  • One participant argues that the mathematical statement functions more like a declarative sentence, supporting the use of "where" over "with."
  • Another participant provides a rewritten version of the original sentence, indicating a preference for omitting the comma before "with."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of commas and the choice between "where" and "with," indicating that there is no consensus on the best approach to punctuation in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the subjective nature of punctuation in mathematical writing and the potential for different interpretations based on personal preferences.

jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50
Recently I went through a bunch of my old solution sets and realized that I've been quite sloppy with my use of punctuation; in particular, examining the quality of my writing in solution sets over a period time, it appears that the lack of proper punctuation is getting more and more pronounced. So, in an effort to fix this trend, I have been trying to use proper punctuation in all of my writing. However, today I came across a sentence that I am uncertain how to punctuate properly, and I was hoping that some of the member of PF could help me out on this one. Here is the sentence:

For each [itex]i \in \{1,\dots,n\}[/itex], write [itex]\alpha_i = b_{i1}\beta_1+\cdots+b_{in}\beta_n[/itex], where [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex].

My question is whether or not the commas used above are correct and/or necessary. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any rules that necessitate the use of the commas, but when I write the sentence above, I am naturally inclined to use the commas.

Edit: I suppose that since [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex] is technically a noun, I should write something like "... with [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex]" instead.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think it looks fine but then again I just started learning how to write proofs not too long ago.
 
jgens said:
Recently I went through a bunch of my old solution sets and realized that I've been quite sloppy with my use of punctuation; in particular, examining the quality of my writing in solution sets over a period time, it appears that the lack of proper punctuation is getting more and more pronounced. So, in an effort to fix this trend, I have been trying to use proper punctuation in all of my writing. However, today I came across a sentence that I am uncertain how to punctuate properly, and I was hoping that some of the member of PF could help me out on this one. Here is the sentence:

For each [itex]i \in \{1,\dots,n\}[/itex], write [itex]\alpha_i = b_{i1}\beta_1+\cdots+b_{in}\beta_n[/itex], where [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex].

My question is whether or not the commas used above are correct and/or necessary. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any rules that necessitate the use of the commas, but when I write the sentence above, I am naturally inclined to use the commas.
IMO, the commas are helpful.
jgens said:
Edit: I suppose that since [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex] is technically a noun, I should write something like "... with [itex]b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}[/itex]" instead.

No, "##b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z} ## " is a mathematical statement, which makes it more akin to a declarative sentence than to a noun. The bis make up the subject, and "##\in Z##" is the predicate. You can use either "where" or "with," and I doubt that anyone would notice, although I lean a bit toward "where."
 
It's not so much about grammar as it is about where the reader should make short pauses. In this case, it's natural to make a short pause at both places where you put commas, so I think it would look weird to omit them. "Where" sounds better than "with" to me. "With" sounds better in this rewrite:

For each ##i\in\{1,\dots,n\}##, let ##\alpha_i## be a linear combination ##b_{i1}\beta_1+\cdots+b_{in}\beta_n## with ##b_{i1},\dots,b_{in} \in \mathbb{Z}##.

I assume that's what you meant. Here I prefer to not use a comma before the "with".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K