Re: Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }
From: Anton Stiglic (stiglic_at_cs.mcgill.ca)
Date: 08/13/03
- Next message: Rick Moen: "Re: License questions"
- Previous message: Michael van Opstall: "Re: Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- In reply to: Mark Wooding: "Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- Next in thread: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:48:49 -0400
"Mark Wooding" <mdw@nsict.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjksra.u6.mdw@tux.nsict.org...
> [Please excuse the crosspost. This issue comes up very frequently when
> I'm doing crypto, and may therefore be of interest to other cryppies;
> but the mathmos may have useful knowledge or suggestions.]
>
> Does anyone know of a decent, /terse/ notation for the set of natural
> numbers { i in N | i < n }, i.e., { 0, 1, ..., n - 1 }? A friend of
> mine suggested using $\mathbb{N}_{<n}$, which for non-LaTeX-speakers
> looks a bit like
>
> ||\ |
> || \|<n
>
> and I'm quite fond of that. However, I'd rather use something standard.
>
> I've seen [n] used to mean { 1, 2, ..., n }, but indexing things from 1
> confuses my little brain, and square brackets have way too many other
> meanings.
N is sometimes used for {0, 1, 2, ..... } and sometimes used for {1, 2, 3,
....}.
There is no standard that says whether or not to include 0. This is why
Z^* is often a better notation for {0, 1, 2, ....}
See for example:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/N.html
How about using something like {Z^n}_0 (Z with exponent n, and lower index
0)?
--Anton
- Next message: Rick Moen: "Re: License questions"
- Previous message: Michael van Opstall: "Re: Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- In reply to: Mark Wooding: "Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- Next in thread: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: Notation wanted for { 0, 1, ..., n }"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
