Notation for extracting value out of single element set

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












2












$begingroup$


In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set



$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = textcomplicated expression here using $a$
$$



Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = x $.



So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element $ x subset B$. Something like



$$unset(S(a))$$



where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:58
















2












$begingroup$


In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set



$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = textcomplicated expression here using $a$
$$



Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = x $.



So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element $ x subset B$. Something like



$$unset(S(a))$$



where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:58














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set



$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = textcomplicated expression here using $a$
$$



Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = x $.



So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element $ x subset B$. Something like



$$unset(S(a))$$



where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




In some part of a document I am writing, I first define a set



$$
S : A to mathcal P(B) \
S(a) = textcomplicated expression here using $a$
$$



Later, I prove that $forall a,~exists x, ~S(a) = x $.



So, I want to now construct some notation for referring to the set with a single element $ x subset B$. Something like



$$unset(S(a))$$



where $unset$ is some valid definition / notation.







elementary-set-theory notation






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 29 '18 at 22:14









Siddharth BhatSiddharth Bhat

2,8581918




2,8581918







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:58













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
    $endgroup$
    – littleO
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:58








1




1




$begingroup$
If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
$endgroup$
– littleO
Dec 29 '18 at 23:58





$begingroup$
If $S(a) =x$ is guaranteed to be a singleton, then people will often abuse notation a bit by pretending that $S(a) = x$. In other words, both $x$ and $x$ are denoted as $S(a)$ (and hopefully the meaning is clear from context).
$endgroup$
– littleO
Dec 29 '18 at 23:58











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup x=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)



Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:




We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.




There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34










  • $begingroup$
    I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:11










  • $begingroup$
    @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:26










  • $begingroup$
    @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:40










  • $begingroup$
    @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49


















1












$begingroup$

It is just the union:



$$bigcup S(a) = bigcupx = x$$



Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text such that c in D$$



For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup A,B$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:23










  • $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – mechanodroid
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:27











  • $begingroup$
    This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34


















0












$begingroup$

Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hata$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056308%2fnotation-for-extracting-value-out-of-single-element-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup x=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)



    Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:




    We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.




    There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34










    • $begingroup$
      I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:11










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:26










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:40










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:49















    2












    $begingroup$

    There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup x=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)



    Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:




    We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.




    There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34










    • $begingroup$
      I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:11










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:26










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:40










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:49













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup x=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)



    Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:




    We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.




    There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    There is no commonly used notation specifically for this, so you shouldn't hesitate to just make up your own. One way you can express it with standard notation is with the symbol $bigcup$: if $S$ is a set, then $bigcup S$ denotes the union of all the elements of $S$, so $bigcup x=x$. This is kind of a "hack" though and is not something you can expect your readers to effortlessly understand. (Mathematically literate readers will figure it out, but it may take them a little work.)



    Ultimately, the purpose of notation is to communicate, so you should pick your notation to communicate clearly and not be afraid to use words instead of notation if that would be clearer. I would probably recommend instead just writing something like:




    We write $s(a)$ for the unique element of the set $S(a)$.




    There's nothing special about the choice of $s$ as the function name for this; it's a reasonable choice to use to remind the reader that it is related to $S$ but there's nothing wrong with using a different name if you have a better reason.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Dec 29 '18 at 22:35

























    answered Dec 29 '18 at 22:32









    Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

    181k12208336




    181k12208336











    • $begingroup$
      Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34










    • $begingroup$
      I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:11










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:26










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:40










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:49
















    • $begingroup$
      Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34










    • $begingroup$
      I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:11










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:26










    • $begingroup$
      @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:40










    • $begingroup$
      @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
      $endgroup$
      – Noah Schweber
      Dec 29 '18 at 23:49















    $begingroup$
    Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34




    $begingroup$
    Thank you, I suppose I'll just do that then :) I was hoping for some existing notation, but oh well.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34












    $begingroup$
    I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:11




    $begingroup$
    I have doubts regarding the validity of blindly using this notation. I think that implicitly the union must be over a collection of sets. If not then what the heck would $2cup 3$ possibly mean?
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:11












    $begingroup$
    @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:26




    $begingroup$
    @MPW Remember that $2=,$, so it's perfectly meaningful. :P (At least, if we're working in set theory.) More to the point, as long as the OP doesn't write "$bigcup x$" when $x$ isn't a set, they'll be fine. And actually, even outside of ZFC you can arguably make sense of all such expressions: e.g. "$2cup3$" is by definition $x: xin 2$ or $xin3$, and if $2$ has no elements this is just $3$. :P
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:26












    $begingroup$
    @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:40




    $begingroup$
    @NoahSchweber : I can’t accept that. Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set. That’s meaningless. I also do not accept the notion that $xmid xin y$ is meaningful if $y$ is not a set, so it certainly isn’t just $varnothing$ because you can’t find any elements in $y$. The very notation is meaningless, just like writing “5 + banana” where “banana” really is a banana.
    $endgroup$
    – MPW
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:40












    $begingroup$
    @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49




    $begingroup$
    @MPW "Here I refer to the union of a point (i.e. a non-set) with a set." I know - I'm saying that "$xin y$" can be viewed as making perfect sense even if $y$ isn't a set: if $y$ isn't a set, then no matter what $x$ is the statement "$xin y$" is false. This is a perfectly coherent, if silly, way to approach things. And the ZFC approach moots the entire issue by making everything a set. But all this is beside the point, which is that this notation poses no danger to the OP: they're only writing "$bigcup x$" in case $x$ is a set (namely, one of the $S(a)$s) so the issue won't even come up.
    $endgroup$
    – Noah Schweber
    Dec 29 '18 at 23:49











    1












    $begingroup$

    It is just the union:



    $$bigcup S(a) = bigcupx = x$$



    Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text such that c in D$$



    For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup A,B$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:23










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
      $endgroup$
      – mechanodroid
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:27











    • $begingroup$
      This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34















    1












    $begingroup$

    It is just the union:



    $$bigcup S(a) = bigcupx = x$$



    Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text such that c in D$$



    For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup A,B$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:23










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
      $endgroup$
      – mechanodroid
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:27











    • $begingroup$
      This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34













    1












    1








    1





    $begingroup$

    It is just the union:



    $$bigcup S(a) = bigcupx = x$$



    Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text such that c in D$$



    For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup A,B$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    It is just the union:



    $$bigcup S(a) = bigcupx = x$$



    Indeed, the union of a set $A$ is defined with $$c in bigcup A iff exists D in A text such that c in D$$



    For two sets we have the more familiar notation $A cup B = bigcup A,B$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 29 '18 at 22:22









    mechanodroidmechanodroid

    27.1k62446




    27.1k62446







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:23










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
      $endgroup$
      – mechanodroid
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:27











    • $begingroup$
      This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
      $endgroup$
      – Eric Wofsey
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:23










    • $begingroup$
      @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
      $endgroup$
      – mechanodroid
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:27











    • $begingroup$
      This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
      $endgroup$
      – Siddharth Bhat
      Dec 29 '18 at 22:34







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:23




    $begingroup$
    This is true but I wouldn't necessarily recommend actually using this notation--it is not particularly evocative of the desired meaning here and may confuse some readers.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:23












    $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – mechanodroid
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:27





    $begingroup$
    @EricWofsey Agreed, I wouldn't use any kind of "$textunset$" function. It would be best to state that $S(a) = x$ and then just use $x$.
    $endgroup$
    – mechanodroid
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:27













    $begingroup$
    This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34




    $begingroup$
    This is neat, I would not have thought of that! However, I'm accepting Eric's answer, since I believe it answers the question's spirit better, by suggesting some kind of wording.
    $endgroup$
    – Siddharth Bhat
    Dec 29 '18 at 22:34











    0












    $begingroup$

    Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hata$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      0












      $begingroup$

      Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hata$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hata$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Since it looks like you’re going to have to invent your own notation, why not just simply $hata$ ? Why bring $S$ into the notation at all?







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 29 '18 at 23:03









        MPWMPW

        29.9k12056




        29.9k12056



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056308%2fnotation-for-extracting-value-out-of-single-element-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?