Isn't this notation a bit sloppy? I've done some mathematical

>>9104686
the picture didnt claim it was using predicate logic.

>>9104689
Then what logic is it using? I mean it has all the regular connectors, and, or, implication, negation, as well as the two quantifiers used in predicate logic.

>>9104686
>commas aren't even part of the alphabet of predicate logic
The truth is that everyone uses their own slightly different notation to suit their taste. There isn't a real Standard Notation that this here is violating.

>>9104717
it's just stating a fact. This notation let's you express it more succinctly. You should just read it as a sentence. And yeah, they omit the "such that" part. I'd put a "s.t" just to make it explicit.

>>9104686
What does the \ in front of R represent?

File: color palette.png (32KB, 428x483px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 428x483px

>>9106083
Thats a shortcut in Latex to get the fancy capital R for Real Numbers R

Why do they say it is true with no proof

>>9104686
what you have written is not equivalent to what is in the provided picture. indeed, as >>9104750 stated, this notation/use of quantifiers is simply a shorthand for expressing claims or statements about whatever you'r studying, in this case it appears like real analysis maybe or just introduction to proofs?

File: squat.gif (2MB, 324x244px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 324x244px

for all x in R, there exists y in R s.t. x = y^3. the comma doesn't necessarily make it wrong but it's pretty kitschy.

can someone explain this letter by letter?
looks interestin but i dont know any notation lmfao

>>9104686
You should just think of it as a sentence.
Besides logic autists, nobody cares about using exact set theoretic syntax.