Trouble Understanding Indexed Union of Lines in the Plane

MotoPayton
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I am having trouble understanding how the indexed union of ln in the first picture is equal to a subset of the plane; an element of it is a point on one of the lines. If I were to choose say 0 1 2 then the indexed union should be y=0 union y=1 union y=2. These lines would have no points in common so the total indexed union should be the empty set. I understand the second second set, it is the indexed union giving me trouble. Sorry if the pictures are blurry my phone isn't the greatest.

0306132054a.jpg


http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/KtmPayton/0306132054.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MotoPayton said:
These lines would have no points in common so the total indexed union should be the empty set.


You didn't include the part of the text where I_n is defined.

Why would having points in common be relevant to a union of sets? Are you thinking of an intersection of sets instead?
 
The definition of In is on the next link. In is a subset of R2 and is the line of equation y=n.
I have to admit for some reason I was stuck on thinking this was an intersection. Thinking about it some more I have realized that the individual sets of the indexed union each contain a line. Those particular sets contain all the points that make up the line.
That is how it differs from the other one where the individual set contains all the different lines. Pretty sure I have it now. Thanks for helping.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top