B Set Theory Question -- Which one is correct?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Heisenberg7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the preference between two logical expressions involving set theory: one using a colon and the other a comma. Participants express that while the second version is technically correct, the first version is preferred for clarity, as the colon is seen as less ambiguous. Alternatives for grouping the expressions are suggested, including the use of additional parentheses or different notations to enhance readability. The use of the colon in logical statements is debated, with some acknowledging its reasonableness while others prefer brackets for longer expressions. Ultimately, both versions are considered acceptable, with a consensus leaning towards the first expression for its clarity.
Heisenberg7
Messages
101
Reaction score
18
I can't decide which one is better to use. I know for a fact that the second one is correct, but I would like to know if I can use the first one too. Which one would you use?
$$\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} (\exists y \in \mathbb{Z} : x > y)$$
Or
$$\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} (\exists y \in \mathbb{Z} , x > y)$$
Is there a different way to group these expressions?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I prefer the first version. The ':' means only 'such that' to me and is less ambiguous than ','. But I think this is just a matter of taste.
 
  • Like
Likes Heisenberg7 and SammyS
I sometimes use
$$
\substack{\forall\\x\in \mathbb{Z}}\quad\substack{\exists\\y\in \mathbb{Z}}\quad x>y
$$
to avoid exactly this question. The comma notation is quite unusual. Another parenthesis would be better
$$
\left(\forall\;x\in \mathbb{Z}\right)\;\left(\exists\;y\in \mathbb{Z}\right)\;x>y
$$
A textbook on logic normally doesn't use any of them. Logic has its own notations like ##\dashv.## I once saw how Russell dealt with set theory. It was barely readable.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes mcastillo356 and Heisenberg7
I would write:
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\, [ x>y ] ##
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\, ( x>y ) ##

It is also OK to write something like:
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, [\, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\, ( x>y ) ] ##
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, (\, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\, ( x>y ) \,) ##

Since the expression ##x>y## is really short, it seems to me that it should also be fine to write:
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\,\,\,\, x>y ##


I haven't seen a symbol like ##:## used in logical statements (but maybe it is used commonly and I don't know it). Normally I think the symbol ##:## is widely used [in place of ##|## ] in defining specific sets. For example, the set of even integers ##E \subseteq \mathbb{Z}##:
##E=\{x \in \mathbb{Z}: \exists k \in \mathbb{Z} (x=2k) \}##
 
Last edited:
Not sure I should bump the thread for a small point. But I think I kind of get how the symbol ##:## seems pretty reasonable for use in logical statements (or representing predicates etc.). Though for longer expressions, personally I think it might be easier to use brackets (at least for me).

Regarding the quesion in OP, I think the original expression (the first one) as written is fine [though this is also mentioned in the very first reply]. I would say it would also be OK to write:
##\forall x \in \mathbb{Z} \, \exists y \in \mathbb{Z} \,\,:\,\, x>y ##
 
  • Like
Likes Heisenberg7
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 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
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...
Back
Top