Is there a standard symbol used as shorthand for "to prove" or "need to show" in a proof? I've seen "N.T.S." but was wondering if there is anything more abstract — not bound to English.
standard symbol for "to prove" or "need to show" in proofs?
2
$\begingroup$
notation
proof-writing
-
13Why would you want a symbol as opposed to just saying the words themselves? – 2011-09-01
-
1I know firsthand the fever from which this user suffers: the desire to have everything in an authoritative symbolic format. Of course, it's not very useful to have formal symbols for *desiderata*, unless one wants to somehow approach mathematics from a design-by-contract-programming style. – 2011-09-01
-
0@J. M., @Niel de Beaudrap: I am a lexicographer and simply enjoy symbols. Mathematics has a particularly rich and varied inventory of them. I'm especially interested in those that have not yet made their way into standard encodings or that compete with more standard symbols. For instance, an `S` with a stroke through the lowermost section, for "suppose", or a reversed `\in` symbol (`\owns` in LaTeX) for "such that". – 2011-09-01
-
0@texmad: Fair enough; sorry for the misunderstanding! Quite incidentally, I've always preferred a colon for "such that" (or occasionally a vertical stroke, in the case of set comprehension). – 2011-09-01
-
4When I become Dictator of Notation, my first decree will be to ban the usage of `\owns` to mean *such that*. Be warned! – 2011-09-02
-
0@texmad By the way, you can use latex in comments -- $\in$ and $\owns$. – 2011-09-02
-
0@Mariano Suárez-Alvarez: Good luck on your decree. When the Qín conquered the rest of what is now China, they issued a decree making their own conservative script the official one throughout their empire. But excavated texts show us that the southerns went right on using their own script. – 2011-09-02
-
0@Mariano: Clearly you never wrote in Hebrew... (or other right-to-left languages...) – 2011-09-02
-
1@Asaf: even if I had made a handwritten copy of Joyce's Ulysses in classical Mongolian script, that would not change the fact that it is notationally criminal to assign two different meanings to such similar notations! Compare $a\in A$, $A\owns a$, $1<2$ and $2>1$. – 2011-09-02