Small letters to represent sets

  • Thread starter Thread starter mousemouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
mousemouse
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'd like to know if using small letters to represent sets violates rules? From what I've been taught capital letters are pretty much used to denote sets. Is this a strict rule?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's all about context. If I'm trying to keep sets and numbers distinct, I might use uppercase and lowercase, respectively. But I might equally well be trying to distinguish sets and proper classes, in which case I'd use lowercase for sets and uppercase for proper classes.

The goal is to use your typography to reduce the amount of effort required of the reader.
 
Okay. In my case I did the opposite of the second item in your example. I used lowercase letters for class and uppercase for sets. I guess this would be ok. I thought there was some strict rule on the use of letters.

Thank you!
 
Such a rule can't possibly be a mathematical rule. It's just convention. In axiomatic set theory, sets are often denoted by lower case letters, such as here. In 'usual mathematics', upper case letters are standard. But of course you can use whatever symbols you like. If you want to write \backslash^*=\{1,2\}, that's fine.
 
Landau said:
Such a rule can't possibly be a mathematical rule. It's just convention. In axiomatic set theory, sets are often denoted by lower case letters, such as here. In 'usual mathematics', upper case letters are standard. But of course you can use whatever symbols you like. If you want to write \backslash^*=\{1,2\}, that's fine.

thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
742
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K