The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: set builder notation
Replies: 12   Last Post: Aug 24, 2013 1:38 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
David C. Ullrich

Posts: 3,555
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: set builder notation
Posted: Aug 17, 2013 12:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT),

>S = {x /in A | P(x) }
>For the set builder notation above, what we really means is:
>all things x, such that "x is element of A *and* P(x) is true" correct?

Yes and no.


(1) {x in A | P(x)}

is the same as

(2) {x | x in A and P(x)}.


No, because (2) is actually not a "legal"
construction of a set! (2) is of the form

(3) {x | Q(x)},

and things of the form (3) are officially not

Not allowed because they lead to contradictions:

S = {x | x is not an element of x}.

Then S an element of S implies S not an element
pf S, and conversely; there is no such set S.

Mathhematians other than set theorists use
(3) all the time, but officially it has to be (1).

>The vertical bar is essentially conjunction, correct?

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.