1
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering if it's right (and not abusive or ugly) the use of two, or more, "such that" in a definition, and in the dealing with mathematical objects. I know that I could find equivalences for such definitions, and some of them more beautiful and readable; but I want to know if such use is correct.

As an example: Let A, B be sets.

$\mathcal{F}(A;B):=\Big\{f: \Big(f\subset A\times B : \; [(a,b)\in f \wedge (a,c)\in f] \Leftrightarrow b=c \Big)\Big\}$.

  • 2
    Your first colon is a delimiter character in the [set builder notation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-builder_notation) - often pronounced "such that". Your second colon is not part of any set-builder notation. It appears that you intend it to denote the words "such that". Here, instead of this colon, you should use $\:\wedge\:$ (logical "and"), as you do elsewhere. Or you could move the universe specification to the left of the colon, as Mariano remarked.2012-01-08

1 Answers 1

2

In my paper Canonical seeds and Prikry trees, I had a need to consider the iterated ultrapower arising from a product measure $\mu=\nu\times\eta$, and so it was necessary to consider $\mu\times\mu$, a product of products. If you look on page 394, you will see that I considered $A\in f\ast\mu^2$, where $f(\langle w,x\rangle,\langle y,z\rangle)=\langle w,z\rangle$ is the mixed projection function, and I proceeded to argue that $\Bigl\{w\mid \Bigl\{x\mid \{y\mid \{z\mid \langle w,z\rangle\in A\strut\}\in\eta\}\in\nu\Bigr\}\in\eta\Bigr\}\in\nu.$

Although I won't speak to whether this notation is abusive or ugly, nevertheless I do find that it succinctly and exactly expresses the necessary fact at the heart of the matter, and so I used it.

(This fact also appears in my dissertation, from part of which this paper was adapted.)