Mixing
Do we need 'such that' after qualifiers?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Alright this is driving me crazy. I'm trying to figure out when we actually need to use 'such that' in math/logical expressions. There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency but I wanted to check to be sure.
I've seen 3 ways of doing it...
- My discrete mathematics professor IIRC always used a 'such that' after an existential qualifier but not after a universal qualifier... so he'd use ∃x ∈ N: x > 1, but then also ∀x ∈ N, x > 0 (I think he'd use a comma here)
- These guys and a couple others I've seen online use no punctuation unless indicating parentheses: What does a period in between quantifiers mean?
- But others still use 'such that' (:) before all qualifiers: Does order of qualifiers matter in FOL formula?
I believe my math professor did what he did because it translated cleanly to English. Since you'd say "There exists an x such that x > 3" but you could also say "For all x, x=x". But I'm trying to figure out what the 'such that' symbol actually means in math, because I don't think the way it works in English necessarily makes sense. Wolfram Alpha defines the 'such that' symbol as 'indicating a condition in the definition of a mathematical object', and this make sense but they introduce yet another convention of qualifiers after a such that since q∈Z ≡ ∀q∈Z. And of course this convention makes no sense when translated to English in the case when for example when we'd say "x > 3: ∃x ∈ N" which translates to "x is greater than three such that there exists an x in naturals".
So anyways my question is what are you actually supposed to do? It looks like there are multiple conventions so which is best and most commonly used?
discrete-mathematics logic
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Alright this is driving me crazy. I'm trying to figure out when we actually need to use 'such that' in math/logical expressions. There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency but I wanted to check to be sure.
I've seen 3 ways of doing it...
- My discrete mathematics professor IIRC always used a 'such that' after an existential qualifier but not after a universal qualifier... so he'd use ∃x ∈ N: x > 1, but then also ∀x ∈ N, x > 0 (I think he'd use a comma here)
- These guys and a couple others I've seen online use no punctuation unless indicating parentheses: What does a period in between quantifiers mean?
- But others still use 'such that' (:) before all qualifiers: Does order of qualifiers matter in FOL formula?
I believe my math professor did what he did because it translated cleanly to English. Since you'd say "There exists an x such that x > 3" but you could also say "For all x, x=x". But I'm trying to figure out what the 'such that' symbol actually means in math, because I don't think the way it works in English necessarily makes sense. Wolfram Alpha defines the 'such that' symbol as 'indicating a condition in the definition of a mathematical object', and this make sense but they introduce yet another convention of qualifiers after a such that since q∈Z ≡ ∀q∈Z. And of course this convention makes no sense when translated to English in the case when for example when we'd say "x > 3: ∃x ∈ N" which translates to "x is greater than three such that there exists an x in naturals".
So anyways my question is what are you actually supposed to do? It looks like there are multiple conventions so which is best and most commonly used?
discrete-mathematics logic
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
1
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Alright this is driving me crazy. I'm trying to figure out when we actually need to use 'such that' in math/logical expressions. There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency but I wanted to check to be sure.
I've seen 3 ways of doing it...
- My discrete mathematics professor IIRC always used a 'such that' after an existential qualifier but not after a universal qualifier... so he'd use ∃x ∈ N: x > 1, but then also ∀x ∈ N, x > 0 (I think he'd use a comma here)
- These guys and a couple others I've seen online use no punctuation unless indicating parentheses: What does a period in between quantifiers mean?
- But others still use 'such that' (:) before all qualifiers: Does order of qualifiers matter in FOL formula?
I believe my math professor did what he did because it translated cleanly to English. Since you'd say "There exists an x such that x > 3" but you could also say "For all x, x=x". But I'm trying to figure out what the 'such that' symbol actually means in math, because I don't think the way it works in English necessarily makes sense. Wolfram Alpha defines the 'such that' symbol as 'indicating a condition in the definition of a mathematical object', and this make sense but they introduce yet another convention of qualifiers after a such that since q∈Z ≡ ∀q∈Z. And of course this convention makes no sense when translated to English in the case when for example when we'd say "x > 3: ∃x ∈ N" which translates to "x is greater than three such that there exists an x in naturals".
So anyways my question is what are you actually supposed to do? It looks like there are multiple conventions so which is best and most commonly used?
discrete-mathematics logic
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Alright this is driving me crazy. I'm trying to figure out when we actually need to use 'such that' in math/logical expressions. There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency but I wanted to check to be sure.
I've seen 3 ways of doing it...
- My discrete mathematics professor IIRC always used a 'such that' after an existential qualifier but not after a universal qualifier... so he'd use ∃x ∈ N: x > 1, but then also ∀x ∈ N, x > 0 (I think he'd use a comma here)
- These guys and a couple others I've seen online use no punctuation unless indicating parentheses: What does a period in between quantifiers mean?
- But others still use 'such that' (:) before all qualifiers: Does order of qualifiers matter in FOL formula?
I believe my math professor did what he did because it translated cleanly to English. Since you'd say "There exists an x such that x > 3" but you could also say "For all x, x=x". But I'm trying to figure out what the 'such that' symbol actually means in math, because I don't think the way it works in English necessarily makes sense. Wolfram Alpha defines the 'such that' symbol as 'indicating a condition in the definition of a mathematical object', and this make sense but they introduce yet another convention of qualifiers after a such that since q∈Z ≡ ∀q∈Z. And of course this convention makes no sense when translated to English in the case when for example when we'd say "x > 3: ∃x ∈ N" which translates to "x is greater than three such that there exists an x in naturals".
So anyways my question is what are you actually supposed to do? It looks like there are multiple conventions so which is best and most commonly used?
discrete-mathematics logic
discrete-mathematics logic
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
asked 4 hours ago
profPlum
82
82
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
profPlum is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
1
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
1
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
1
1
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
1
1
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
And in Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, he presents the axioms of ZFC in first-order logic as follows:
There's neither ':' nor ','. Also, if you look at how first-order formulas are defined, you'll see no mention of ':' or ','.
So I don't think there's a standard think or rule to follow about these kind of things when you're doing mathematics in general. See what others use in general, and use it similarly, in a way that would be clearly understood.
Edit: This kind of questions may be relevant when you're doing things related to mathematical logic or computer science.
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Some people even write things like $$exists z text s.t. forall y, ynotin z$$
Personally I think this is a horrible practice. One can think what one wants about how it wastes space, but more importantly it reinforces the dangerous misconception that logical symbols are just shorthand for words in English sentences. They are not; they make up a separate language with its own syntax and semantics, and the way we usually pronounce it with English words can misrepresent that semantics. (Consider for example how many beginning students, and sometimes textbook authors, who get themselves into contortions trying to understand the truth table of $Rightarrow$ as if it ought to be forced by the English words "if" and "then").
The "just shorthand for English words" mistake is also what makes people sometimes put quantifiers last, which leads to horrors such as
$$ exists z text s.t. ynotin z,; forall y $$
where we have completely lost the information about whether $z$ is allowed to depend on $y$ or not -- is it
$$ exists z text s.t. (ynotin z,; forall y) qquadtext or qquad
(exists z text s.t. ynotin z),; forall y;? $$
Succinct clarity about these matters is a big part of why we use symbolic quantifiers at all in the first place!
So always put quantifiers before the formula they range over.
And eschew punctuation that pretends symbolic logic is a way to write down English.
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are no universally accepted standards in this case. You really must get used to slight variations in notation from one author to the next.
To add to the confusion, I often write $forall x: [x in N implies P(x)]$ and $exists x: [x in N land P(x)]$. It uses more symbols but it is often easier to work with than other notations. Tricky proofs in logic for the beginner, can often be made much simpler using this notation.
Warning: Avoid using $exists x: [ xin N implies P(x)]$. Very weird things can happen. Using ordinary set theory here, this statement will be true for any set $N$ and for even the most nonsensical proposition $P(x).$
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In my experience, mathematical logicians never use the form with ":", but split into two camps as regards the use of a ".": many people don't use a "." after quantifiers and take the quantifiers to have high precedence, so that $forall xforall y(x > y implies x ge y + 1)$ requires the brackets to make $x ge y + 1$ fall in the scope of the universal quantifiers; others use a "." or a "$bullet$" and take it as indicating that the quantifiers have low precedence, so they would write $forall x.forall y.x > y implies x ge y + 1$ (with the scope of the quantifiers extending as far to the right as possible). The former usage is fairly standard in the traditional logic literature, while the latter is perhaps more common among computer scientists and is often adopted in the syntax for proof assistants like HOL (and saves a lot of brackets in my experience of using such systems).
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
And in Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, he presents the axioms of ZFC in first-order logic as follows:
There's neither ':' nor ','. Also, if you look at how first-order formulas are defined, you'll see no mention of ':' or ','.
So I don't think there's a standard think or rule to follow about these kind of things when you're doing mathematics in general. See what others use in general, and use it similarly, in a way that would be clearly understood.
Edit: This kind of questions may be relevant when you're doing things related to mathematical logic or computer science.
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
And in Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, he presents the axioms of ZFC in first-order logic as follows:
There's neither ':' nor ','. Also, if you look at how first-order formulas are defined, you'll see no mention of ':' or ','.
So I don't think there's a standard think or rule to follow about these kind of things when you're doing mathematics in general. See what others use in general, and use it similarly, in a way that would be clearly understood.
Edit: This kind of questions may be relevant when you're doing things related to mathematical logic or computer science.
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
And in Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, he presents the axioms of ZFC in first-order logic as follows:
There's neither ':' nor ','. Also, if you look at how first-order formulas are defined, you'll see no mention of ':' or ','.
So I don't think there's a standard think or rule to follow about these kind of things when you're doing mathematics in general. See what others use in general, and use it similarly, in a way that would be clearly understood.
Edit: This kind of questions may be relevant when you're doing things related to mathematical logic or computer science.
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
And in Enderton's Elements of Set Theory, he presents the axioms of ZFC in first-order logic as follows:
There's neither ':' nor ','. Also, if you look at how first-order formulas are defined, you'll see no mention of ':' or ','.
So I don't think there's a standard think or rule to follow about these kind of things when you're doing mathematics in general. See what others use in general, and use it similarly, in a way that would be clearly understood.
Edit: This kind of questions may be relevant when you're doing things related to mathematical logic or computer science.
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
answered 4 hours ago
Scientifica
5,27121331
5,27121331
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Ok interesting, I'm starting to think this no punctuation notation is most common and "formal". Thanks for your answer
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
Also yes it is, I ask mostly for personal note-keeping but also in case I need to include it in any research papers.
– profPlum
4 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
You're welcome :) Glad you found the answer useful. Oh don't worry about that. People here answer for the pleasure of mathematics ;)
– Scientifica
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Some people even write things like $$exists z text s.t. forall y, ynotin z$$
Personally I think this is a horrible practice. One can think what one wants about how it wastes space, but more importantly it reinforces the dangerous misconception that logical symbols are just shorthand for words in English sentences. They are not; they make up a separate language with its own syntax and semantics, and the way we usually pronounce it with English words can misrepresent that semantics. (Consider for example how many beginning students, and sometimes textbook authors, who get themselves into contortions trying to understand the truth table of $Rightarrow$ as if it ought to be forced by the English words "if" and "then").
The "just shorthand for English words" mistake is also what makes people sometimes put quantifiers last, which leads to horrors such as
$$ exists z text s.t. ynotin z,; forall y $$
where we have completely lost the information about whether $z$ is allowed to depend on $y$ or not -- is it
$$ exists z text s.t. (ynotin z,; forall y) qquadtext or qquad
(exists z text s.t. ynotin z),; forall y;? $$
Succinct clarity about these matters is a big part of why we use symbolic quantifiers at all in the first place!
So always put quantifiers before the formula they range over.
And eschew punctuation that pretends symbolic logic is a way to write down English.
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Some people even write things like $$exists z text s.t. forall y, ynotin z$$
Personally I think this is a horrible practice. One can think what one wants about how it wastes space, but more importantly it reinforces the dangerous misconception that logical symbols are just shorthand for words in English sentences. They are not; they make up a separate language with its own syntax and semantics, and the way we usually pronounce it with English words can misrepresent that semantics. (Consider for example how many beginning students, and sometimes textbook authors, who get themselves into contortions trying to understand the truth table of $Rightarrow$ as if it ought to be forced by the English words "if" and "then").
The "just shorthand for English words" mistake is also what makes people sometimes put quantifiers last, which leads to horrors such as
$$ exists z text s.t. ynotin z,; forall y $$
where we have completely lost the information about whether $z$ is allowed to depend on $y$ or not -- is it
$$ exists z text s.t. (ynotin z,; forall y) qquadtext or qquad
(exists z text s.t. ynotin z),; forall y;? $$
Succinct clarity about these matters is a big part of why we use symbolic quantifiers at all in the first place!
So always put quantifiers before the formula they range over.
And eschew punctuation that pretends symbolic logic is a way to write down English.
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Some people even write things like $$exists z text s.t. forall y, ynotin z$$
Personally I think this is a horrible practice. One can think what one wants about how it wastes space, but more importantly it reinforces the dangerous misconception that logical symbols are just shorthand for words in English sentences. They are not; they make up a separate language with its own syntax and semantics, and the way we usually pronounce it with English words can misrepresent that semantics. (Consider for example how many beginning students, and sometimes textbook authors, who get themselves into contortions trying to understand the truth table of $Rightarrow$ as if it ought to be forced by the English words "if" and "then").
The "just shorthand for English words" mistake is also what makes people sometimes put quantifiers last, which leads to horrors such as
$$ exists z text s.t. ynotin z,; forall y $$
where we have completely lost the information about whether $z$ is allowed to depend on $y$ or not -- is it
$$ exists z text s.t. (ynotin z,; forall y) qquadtext or qquad
(exists z text s.t. ynotin z),; forall y;? $$
Succinct clarity about these matters is a big part of why we use symbolic quantifiers at all in the first place!
So always put quantifiers before the formula they range over.
And eschew punctuation that pretends symbolic logic is a way to write down English.
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
Some people even write things like $$exists z text s.t. forall y, ynotin z$$
Personally I think this is a horrible practice. One can think what one wants about how it wastes space, but more importantly it reinforces the dangerous misconception that logical symbols are just shorthand for words in English sentences. They are not; they make up a separate language with its own syntax and semantics, and the way we usually pronounce it with English words can misrepresent that semantics. (Consider for example how many beginning students, and sometimes textbook authors, who get themselves into contortions trying to understand the truth table of $Rightarrow$ as if it ought to be forced by the English words "if" and "then").
The "just shorthand for English words" mistake is also what makes people sometimes put quantifiers last, which leads to horrors such as
$$ exists z text s.t. ynotin z,; forall y $$
where we have completely lost the information about whether $z$ is allowed to depend on $y$ or not -- is it
$$ exists z text s.t. (ynotin z,; forall y) qquadtext or qquad
(exists z text s.t. ynotin z),; forall y;? $$
Succinct clarity about these matters is a big part of why we use symbolic quantifiers at all in the first place!
So always put quantifiers before the formula they range over.
And eschew punctuation that pretends symbolic logic is a way to write down English.
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
answered 1 hour ago
Henning Makholm
232k16297529
232k16297529
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
I don't think a colon necessarily means "such that", though (written English doesn't use a colon for that function at all), but a comma after $forall y$ instead of a dot or colon, that drives me up a wall.
– Henning Makholm
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
Re: "Contortions trying to understand the truth table of ⇒ as if it ought to be forced by the English words 'if' and 'then.'" It seems to me that, if we are dealing with logical propositions that are unambiguously either true or false, then material implication quite adequately models the if-then constructs of natural language.
– Dan Christensen
1 hour ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
@DanChristensen: the problem Henning is pointing out already exists if you write the quantifiers in natural language: "there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$ for any natural number $m$" is ambiguous whereas "there exists a natural number $n$ such that for any natural number $m$ $n > m$" and "for any natural number $m$ there exists a natural number $n$ such that $n > m$" are not (the former being false and the latter being true).
– Rob Arthan
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are no universally accepted standards in this case. You really must get used to slight variations in notation from one author to the next.
To add to the confusion, I often write $forall x: [x in N implies P(x)]$ and $exists x: [x in N land P(x)]$. It uses more symbols but it is often easier to work with than other notations. Tricky proofs in logic for the beginner, can often be made much simpler using this notation.
Warning: Avoid using $exists x: [ xin N implies P(x)]$. Very weird things can happen. Using ordinary set theory here, this statement will be true for any set $N$ and for even the most nonsensical proposition $P(x).$
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are no universally accepted standards in this case. You really must get used to slight variations in notation from one author to the next.
To add to the confusion, I often write $forall x: [x in N implies P(x)]$ and $exists x: [x in N land P(x)]$. It uses more symbols but it is often easier to work with than other notations. Tricky proofs in logic for the beginner, can often be made much simpler using this notation.
Warning: Avoid using $exists x: [ xin N implies P(x)]$. Very weird things can happen. Using ordinary set theory here, this statement will be true for any set $N$ and for even the most nonsensical proposition $P(x).$
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There are no universally accepted standards in this case. You really must get used to slight variations in notation from one author to the next.
To add to the confusion, I often write $forall x: [x in N implies P(x)]$ and $exists x: [x in N land P(x)]$. It uses more symbols but it is often easier to work with than other notations. Tricky proofs in logic for the beginner, can often be made much simpler using this notation.
Warning: Avoid using $exists x: [ xin N implies P(x)]$. Very weird things can happen. Using ordinary set theory here, this statement will be true for any set $N$ and for even the most nonsensical proposition $P(x).$
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
There are no universally accepted standards in this case. You really must get used to slight variations in notation from one author to the next.
To add to the confusion, I often write $forall x: [x in N implies P(x)]$ and $exists x: [x in N land P(x)]$. It uses more symbols but it is often easier to work with than other notations. Tricky proofs in logic for the beginner, can often be made much simpler using this notation.
Warning: Avoid using $exists x: [ xin N implies P(x)]$. Very weird things can happen. Using ordinary set theory here, this statement will be true for any set $N$ and for even the most nonsensical proposition $P(x).$
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
answered 2 hours ago
Dan Christensen
8,17511732
8,17511732
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In my experience, mathematical logicians never use the form with ":", but split into two camps as regards the use of a ".": many people don't use a "." after quantifiers and take the quantifiers to have high precedence, so that $forall xforall y(x > y implies x ge y + 1)$ requires the brackets to make $x ge y + 1$ fall in the scope of the universal quantifiers; others use a "." or a "$bullet$" and take it as indicating that the quantifiers have low precedence, so they would write $forall x.forall y.x > y implies x ge y + 1$ (with the scope of the quantifiers extending as far to the right as possible). The former usage is fairly standard in the traditional logic literature, while the latter is perhaps more common among computer scientists and is often adopted in the syntax for proof assistants like HOL (and saves a lot of brackets in my experience of using such systems).
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In my experience, mathematical logicians never use the form with ":", but split into two camps as regards the use of a ".": many people don't use a "." after quantifiers and take the quantifiers to have high precedence, so that $forall xforall y(x > y implies x ge y + 1)$ requires the brackets to make $x ge y + 1$ fall in the scope of the universal quantifiers; others use a "." or a "$bullet$" and take it as indicating that the quantifiers have low precedence, so they would write $forall x.forall y.x > y implies x ge y + 1$ (with the scope of the quantifiers extending as far to the right as possible). The former usage is fairly standard in the traditional logic literature, while the latter is perhaps more common among computer scientists and is often adopted in the syntax for proof assistants like HOL (and saves a lot of brackets in my experience of using such systems).
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In my experience, mathematical logicians never use the form with ":", but split into two camps as regards the use of a ".": many people don't use a "." after quantifiers and take the quantifiers to have high precedence, so that $forall xforall y(x > y implies x ge y + 1)$ requires the brackets to make $x ge y + 1$ fall in the scope of the universal quantifiers; others use a "." or a "$bullet$" and take it as indicating that the quantifiers have low precedence, so they would write $forall x.forall y.x > y implies x ge y + 1$ (with the scope of the quantifiers extending as far to the right as possible). The former usage is fairly standard in the traditional logic literature, while the latter is perhaps more common among computer scientists and is often adopted in the syntax for proof assistants like HOL (and saves a lot of brackets in my experience of using such systems).
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
In my experience, mathematical logicians never use the form with ":", but split into two camps as regards the use of a ".": many people don't use a "." after quantifiers and take the quantifiers to have high precedence, so that $forall xforall y(x > y implies x ge y + 1)$ requires the brackets to make $x ge y + 1$ fall in the scope of the universal quantifiers; others use a "." or a "$bullet$" and take it as indicating that the quantifiers have low precedence, so they would write $forall x.forall y.x > y implies x ge y + 1$ (with the scope of the quantifiers extending as far to the right as possible). The former usage is fairly standard in the traditional logic literature, while the latter is perhaps more common among computer scientists and is often adopted in the syntax for proof assistants like HOL (and saves a lot of brackets in my experience of using such systems).
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
answered 3 mins ago
Rob Arthan
27.8k42865
27.8k42865
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
profPlum is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
profPlum is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
profPlum is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
profPlum is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2933370%2fdo-we-need-such-that-after-qualifiers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
It's similar to asking what "like" means in casual conversation. It's, like, simply a placeholder. It's, like, a verbal tic in the expression of an existential statement. I do it, many mathematicians do it.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Math isn't casual conversation though...
– profPlum
4 hours ago
1
Math between human beings, whether spoken or written, is carried out in human language, though. The point is: clarity and communication. Placeholders can help (and they can, like, hinder).
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
Ok sure, so that would be "informal speach" which in English speaking cultures and many other cultures is grammatically incorrect. So why question is what is grammatically correct?
– profPlum
4 hours ago
To answer your grammar question, putting the words "such that" in the correct position of an existentially quantified statement is correct mathematical grammar.
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago