Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

The meaning of $\pm$

+1
−0

Consider the claim $ |x| = \pm x $.

I would interpret it as stating that $|x| = x$ and $|x| = -x$, thereby implying that $x = 0$.

A user at Matheducators stackexchange interprets it as saying that $|x| = x$ or $|x| = -x$, which holds for all real numbers.

I would typically use the notation to index solutions to an equation or some numbers I am going through; the roots of a second order polynomial being an elementary case, but not the only one. I might also use it as a shorthand if I need to calculate something for two things of opposite sign and figured I could both calculations at once.

It is pretty clear that my intuitions are in conflict here; in one case I consider $\pm$ to mean and, while in other, or. Is this just a mistake or is there something deeper going on here?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

2 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+2
−0

I think I can explain what's going on by interpreting things more formally, though it could be gotten at informally as well; it's just clearer to see formally.

One way to interpret "$y = \pm x$" (and other informal notations like $y = 1,2,3$) is as $y \in \{x, -x\}$ ($y \in \{1,2,3\}$). This is logically equivalent to $y = x \lor y = -x$. So that's one direct answer.

However, because $(A \lor B) \implies C$ is equivalent to $(A \implies C) \land (B \implies C)$ (and $\forall x \in S. P(x)$ is equivalent to $\forall x. x \in S \implies P(x)$), the text might have a more conjunctive rendition. To be clear, we'd still interpret "$y = \pm x$" as $y = x \lor y = -x$, but a statement like "$y^2 = 1$ for $y = \pm 1$" could mean $\forall y. y = \pm 1 \implies y^2 = 1$ and could be rendered as "$y^2 = 1$ for $y = 1$ and $y = -1$".

Of course, for roots of polynomials we often take something like "$y^2 = 1$ for $y = \pm 1$" to mean $y^2 = 1 \iff y\in\{1, -1\}$. In this case, if we take the left-to-right implication, i.e. using the quadratic equation to constrain the values of $y$, then clearly viewing $y=\pm 1$ as "$y = 1$ or $y = -1$" is natural. Going the other way, i.e. showing that these values of $y$ satisfy the quadratic equation leads to the situation of the previous paragraph.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write "$y = \pm x$" to mean $y = x \land y = -x$. In most contexts, this immediately implies $y=0$ so you may as well write that. If the point is to prove $y=0$ by showing $y = x \land y = -x$, it would be clearer to write something like $x = y = -x$.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+5
−0

I think I would describe that as ‘the two claims $|x| = \pm x$’, not a single claim. It's comparable to saying ‘the two roots of $x^2 - 4$ are $x = \pm2$’ and not ‘the root of $x^2 - 4$ is $x = \pm2$’.

Whether those two claims are meant to be and-ed or or-ed would depend on context. In a vacuum, I don't think I would be able to unambiguously assign meaning to ‘the claim $|x| = \pm x$’.

More broadly, I think I've seen only two general conventions for $\pm$-containing equations, and they both seem fairly rigorous to me if slightly informal. The first is that an expression or equation containing one or more ‘$\pm$’ and optionally ‘$\mp$’ signs is always shorthand for two of the same: one in which each $\pm$ and $\mp$ is replaced by its upper component, and one in which the lower components are used instead. The second is that an expression or equation using $n$ ‘$\pm$’ signs is a shorthand for $2^n$ of the same in which every combination is represented. I generally expect an author to clarify which convention is in use if more than one ‘$\pm$’ is present, and as above I also expect these conventions to be used in a context in which multiple equations/expressions are expected.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »