Where Can I Learn This Notation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Physics_wiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding specific mathematical notation used in systems theory, particularly from a book by Heij, Ran, and van Schagen. Participants suggest that this notation is foundational and can be learned through introductory texts in Analysis, Topology, or Set Theory. It is emphasized that while the notation may seem complex at first, it becomes intuitive and efficient once mastered. The consensus is that acquiring knowledge in these areas will clarify the notation and enhance mathematical writing skills. Overall, the notation is deemed elementary and accessible with the right resources.
Physics_wiz
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to read a mathematical systems theory book (by Heij, Ran, and van Schagen) and he uses notation that I don't understand. He's not the only one...other books use the same notation too, but I never learned it. For example:

"Definition 1.2.2. An input-output system consists of a set of input trajectories \{u : T \rightarrow U\} and output trajectories \{y : T \rightarrow Y \} related by a mapping F. The system behaviour is given by \beta = \{(u, y) : T \rightarrow U \times Y ; y = F(u)\}."

The parts of the quote in latex is what I don't understand. I can have a general idea what he means, but where do students learn this notation? Is it real analysis? If so, I can just buy a book and read since I've seen notation like this practically everywhere without explanation which leads me to think that it's rather elementary.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Physics_wiz said:
I'm trying to read a mathematical systems theory book (by Heij, Ran, and van Schagen) and he uses notation that I don't understand. He's not the only one...other books use the same notation too, but I never learned it. For example:

"Definition 1.2.2. An input-output system consists of a set of input trajectories \{u : T \rightarrow U\} and output trajectories \{y : T \rightarrow Y \} related by a mapping F. The system behaviour is given by \beta = \{(u, y) : T \rightarrow U \times Y ; y = F(u)\}."

The parts of the quote in latex is what I don't understand. I can have a general idea what he means, but where do students learn this notation? Is it real analysis? If so, I can just buy a book and read since I've seen notation like this practically everywhere without explanation which leads me to think that it's rather elementary.

It's rather an elementary thing, which is a good thing!

I would say just read any decent Analysis, Topology or Set Theory introduction and you'll get it. Only like chapter 1 pretty much.

It might look weird now, but once you get it, you won't want to write any other way. It's the easiest way to write math ideas down.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...
Back
Top