Talk:Set notation

Hope it's not presumptuous of me to add the {{maths rating}} tag. I'm not suggesting it's a crucial or particularly stellar article. I'm really just seeking others' views on its quality and encouraging enhancements and additions.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing TeXbook reference

My copy of the TeXbook makes reference to blackboard bold twice (not including margin labeling and index entries). There exists no mention of Knuth's opinion on the use of blackboard bold, so using the TeXbook as a substantiating reference is inappropriate. In short, Knuth acknowledges the existence of these forms, indicating that they are not available in plain TeX but can be used with AMS-TeX and similar.

The references:

p. 164

"The bold fonts available in plain TEX are "bold roman," rather than "bold italic," because the latter are rarely needed. However, TEX could readily be set up to make use of bold math italics, if desired (see Exercise 17.20). A more extensive set of math fonts would also include script, Fraktur, and "blackboard bold" styles; plain TeX doesn't have these, but other formats like AMS-TeX do."

p. 434

"Several other alphabets are also used with mathematics (notably Fraktur, script, and "blackboard bold"); they don't come with plain TeX, but more elaborate formats like AMS-TeX do provide them."

If another Wikipedian has a version of the TeXbook (or another relevant reference) which substantiates the distaste of Knuth specifically and mathematicians generally, please be WP:BOLD and edit the page. NihilistDandy (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done (q.v.)—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous formula?

{b∈Z : b = 2a, ∀ a∈Z}) seems wrong. Mathematically, it should be {b∈Z : b = 2a, ∃a∈Z}) (there is SOME integer a such that be = 2a). Notationally, I don't know if this is a standard way to write it, or whether it should be {b∈Z : b = 2a, a∈Z}) or {b∈Z : b = 2a ∧ a∈Z}). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.153.116 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Title is notation

I was looking for a page defining the specific symbols, ∈, ∧, etc. This page seems to define sets rather than the notation. Is this deliberate? Should there be a link to another page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.20.212 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No, to speak precisely, the page is not directly about sets, but about how to represent them notationally. A discussion of the first example symbol you mention, ∈, would be appropriate in an article about notations relevant to set theory, but not in this article, which addresses only the various ways of notating sets themselves (and not, for instance, how to notate the relationship between sets and their elements).—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, perhaps what your looking for is Wikipedia's list of mathematical symbols.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)