In functional analysis, is there a commonly accepted short-hand notation for specific types of convergence?












0














In math literature on functional analysis I found various short-hand notations for specific types of convergence, e.g. a single right arrow for pointwise convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{to} f(x)$$



as opposed to paired arrows for uniform convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{⇉} f(x)$$



Are these notations commonly known and accepted? Are there any standard notations to abbreviate clumsy constructs such as



$$ forall varepsilon>0 exists N forall x forall n>N:
|f_n(x)-f(x)|<varepsilon $$










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
    – MisterRiemann
    Dec 28 '18 at 15:03










  • Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
    – user3609959
    Dec 28 '18 at 16:00










  • Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 28 '18 at 19:45
















0














In math literature on functional analysis I found various short-hand notations for specific types of convergence, e.g. a single right arrow for pointwise convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{to} f(x)$$



as opposed to paired arrows for uniform convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{⇉} f(x)$$



Are these notations commonly known and accepted? Are there any standard notations to abbreviate clumsy constructs such as



$$ forall varepsilon>0 exists N forall x forall n>N:
|f_n(x)-f(x)|<varepsilon $$










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
    – MisterRiemann
    Dec 28 '18 at 15:03










  • Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
    – user3609959
    Dec 28 '18 at 16:00










  • Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 28 '18 at 19:45














0












0








0







In math literature on functional analysis I found various short-hand notations for specific types of convergence, e.g. a single right arrow for pointwise convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{to} f(x)$$



as opposed to paired arrows for uniform convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{⇉} f(x)$$



Are these notations commonly known and accepted? Are there any standard notations to abbreviate clumsy constructs such as



$$ forall varepsilon>0 exists N forall x forall n>N:
|f_n(x)-f(x)|<varepsilon $$










share|cite|improve this question















In math literature on functional analysis I found various short-hand notations for specific types of convergence, e.g. a single right arrow for pointwise convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{to} f(x)$$



as opposed to paired arrows for uniform convergence



$$f_n(x) underset{n to infty}{⇉} f(x)$$



Are these notations commonly known and accepted? Are there any standard notations to abbreviate clumsy constructs such as



$$ forall varepsilon>0 exists N forall x forall n>N:
|f_n(x)-f(x)|<varepsilon $$







convergence notation uniform-convergence pointwise-convergence






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 28 '18 at 15:05







user3609959

















asked Dec 28 '18 at 15:01









user3609959user3609959

1




1








  • 1




    Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
    – MisterRiemann
    Dec 28 '18 at 15:03










  • Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
    – user3609959
    Dec 28 '18 at 16:00










  • Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 28 '18 at 19:45














  • 1




    Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
    – MisterRiemann
    Dec 28 '18 at 15:03










  • Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
    – user3609959
    Dec 28 '18 at 16:00










  • Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 28 '18 at 19:45








1




1




Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
– MisterRiemann
Dec 28 '18 at 15:03




Why not just write it out in text? I feel that writing it out makes it much easier to follow what's going on.
– MisterRiemann
Dec 28 '18 at 15:03












Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
– user3609959
Dec 28 '18 at 16:00




Thanks for your comment, MisterRiemann. In my opinion, using expressive symbols and concise formulae in addition to the text may help the reader to grasp and remember the key concepts more easily.
– user3609959
Dec 28 '18 at 16:00












Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
– SmileyCraft
Dec 28 '18 at 19:45




Big fan of functional analysis, never seen these notations with those meanings. If you want to use such notation, always explain what you mean. Although I agree with MisterRiemann that you want to avoid defining too many notations. It means the reader has to remember all these notations in order to understand what you're writing about.
– SmileyCraft
Dec 28 '18 at 19:45










0






active

oldest

votes











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%2f3054969%2fin-functional-analysis-is-there-a-commonly-accepted-short-hand-notation-for-spe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


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%2f3054969%2fin-functional-analysis-is-there-a-commonly-accepted-short-hand-notation-for-spe%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

Human spaceflight

Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg