My Math Forum International Notations for Number Sets

 Elementary Math Fractions, Percentages, Word Problems, Equations, Inequations, Factorization, Expansion

 November 6th, 2017, 05:48 PM #1 Senior Member     Joined: Nov 2010 From: Indonesia Posts: 2,001 Thanks: 132 Math Focus: Trigonometry International Notations for Number Sets Okay, so I know that the international notations for the set of natural numbers, whole numbers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers are N, Z, Q, R, and C, respectively. However, what are the international notations for the set of integers (natural numbers and zero), even numbers, odd, numbers, prime numbers, composite numbers, and cube numbers? Thanks in advance.
December 31st, 2017, 07:33 AM   #2
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 803
Thanks: 301

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Monox D. I-Fly Okay, so I know that the international notations for the set of natural numbers, whole numbers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers are N, Z, Q, R, and C, respectively. However, what are the international notations for the set of integers (natural numbers and zero), even numbers, odd, numbers, prime numbers, composite numbers, and cube numbers? Thanks in advance.
Whole numbers is a term that exists in my country, but is no widely recognized. Integers is the proper term for $\mathbb{Z}$.
The natural numbers is debated. Some think it should have 0 (for example in set theory), others think it shouldn't. You'll find $\mathbb{N}$ to refer to both sets in the literature. Personally, as a set theorist, I prefer $\mathbb{N}$ to include 0.

As for even numbers and odd numbers, I would use $2\mathbb{N}$ and $2\mathbb{N}+1$. Or if you accept negative numbers to be even/odd (as is common), you have $2\mathbb{Z}$ or $2\mathbb{Z}+1$.

As for primes, composites, cubes, squares, I haven't encounter a proper notation that is standard. Sometimes I've seen $\mathbb{P}$ for primes, but this is not standard at all.

 December 31st, 2017, 09:08 AM #3 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 312 Thanks: 111 Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry I don't think it's international/standard notation, but I personally like to use $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{> 0}$ for the sets of non-negative integers and positive integers, respectively. This gets around any ambiguity that the symbol $\mathbb{N}$ has.
 December 31st, 2017, 09:30 AM #4 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 803 Thanks: 301 That said, I think it's pretty inconvenient there is no standard notation for $\{1,...,n\}$. I really feel this is lacking somehow.
December 31st, 2017, 10:00 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss That said, I think it's pretty inconvenient there is no standard notation for $\{1,...,n\}$. I really feel this is lacking somehow.
To avoid ambiguity, I use $\mathbb N^+ \equiv \{1,\ 2,\ ...\}.$

This does not seem to be my invention, but it may not be a well accepted convention.

EDIT: I could happily live with $\mathbb Z_{\ge 0} \text { and } \mathbb Z_{>0}.$

Last edited by JeffM1; December 31st, 2017 at 10:04 AM.

 January 1st, 2018, 05:43 PM #6 Senior Member     Joined: Nov 2010 From: Indonesia Posts: 2,001 Thanks: 132 Math Focus: Trigonometry Well, I guess it's case closed, then.
January 2nd, 2018, 12:32 AM   #7
Global Moderator

Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,946
Thanks: 1137

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss That said, I think it's pretty inconvenient there is no standard notation for $\{1,...,n\}$. I really feel this is lacking somehow.
I agree. And as we may count zero objects I think $\mathbf{N}$ should include zero. So $\mathbf{N}_0$ and $\mathbf{N}_1$ seems natural.

January 2nd, 2018, 07:20 AM   #8
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 803
Thanks: 301

Quote:
 Originally Posted by greg1313 I agree. And as we may count zero objects I think $\mathbf{N}$ should include zero. So $\mathbf{N}_0$ and $\mathbf{N}_1$ seems natural.
According to set theory, the proper notation for $\{0,...,n\}$ is $n+1$. But somehow this is not popular, I wonder why "Take $m\in n+1$ and ..."

 January 2nd, 2018, 12:11 PM #9 Senior Member   Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,826 Thanks: 646 Math Focus: Yet to find out. I’ve seen a similar thread on here once before. I’m confused what the fuss is. Doesn’t Peanos first axiom say that 0 is a natural number? In sets 0 ={}, 1 = {{}} etc. ? Or did I miss something .
January 2nd, 2018, 02:22 PM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 803
Thanks: 301

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy I’ve seen a similar thread on here once before. I’m confused what the fuss is. Doesn’t Peanos first axiom say that 0 is a natural number? In sets 0 ={}, 1 = {{}} etc. ? Or did I miss something .
Not really, since Peano's first axiom is as easily stated with 1 as first element. And some books actually DO this.

You're right about the set theory thing though...

Last edited by Micrm@ss; January 2nd, 2018 at 02:25 PM.

 Tags international, notations, number, sets

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post randomquestion Applied Math 1 March 17th, 2017 04:39 PM mid Advanced Statistics 0 July 22nd, 2013 07:07 AM tbillion Applied Math 17 September 5th, 2012 06:13 AM hoyy1kolko Algebra 4 March 15th, 2011 06:44 AM hoyy1kolko Algebra 4 March 12th, 2011 11:00 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top