Does “V contains S” have two different meanings?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












Talking in terms of sets, I would take the above to mean $S in V$. But my course's notes says




Let $S$ be a subset of a vector space $V$, the span of $S$, denoted $Span(S)$ is the smallest subspace of $V$ that contains $S$.




Which confuses me, because $V$ contains vectors, whereas $S$ is a set, not a vector, so by my definition, $V$ cannot contains $S$.



So by "$V$ contains $S$" I assume it means $S subseteq V$, right? Is this considered correct also?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    Talking in terms of sets, I would take the above to mean $S in V$. But my course's notes says




    Let $S$ be a subset of a vector space $V$, the span of $S$, denoted $Span(S)$ is the smallest subspace of $V$ that contains $S$.




    Which confuses me, because $V$ contains vectors, whereas $S$ is a set, not a vector, so by my definition, $V$ cannot contains $S$.



    So by "$V$ contains $S$" I assume it means $S subseteq V$, right? Is this considered correct also?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      Talking in terms of sets, I would take the above to mean $S in V$. But my course's notes says




      Let $S$ be a subset of a vector space $V$, the span of $S$, denoted $Span(S)$ is the smallest subspace of $V$ that contains $S$.




      Which confuses me, because $V$ contains vectors, whereas $S$ is a set, not a vector, so by my definition, $V$ cannot contains $S$.



      So by "$V$ contains $S$" I assume it means $S subseteq V$, right? Is this considered correct also?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Talking in terms of sets, I would take the above to mean $S in V$. But my course's notes says




      Let $S$ be a subset of a vector space $V$, the span of $S$, denoted $Span(S)$ is the smallest subspace of $V$ that contains $S$.




      Which confuses me, because $V$ contains vectors, whereas $S$ is a set, not a vector, so by my definition, $V$ cannot contains $S$.



      So by "$V$ contains $S$" I assume it means $S subseteq V$, right? Is this considered correct also?







      notation






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      cb7

      562




      562






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          Yes. Unfortunately, "$x$ contains $y$" is ambiguous: it can mean either $yin x$ or $ysubseteq x$. Some writers make this distinction between "contains" and "includes": a set contains its elements and includes its subsets. Unfortunately, some do just the opposite, and say that a set includes its elements and contains its subsets. Sorry about that.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
            – Barry Cipra
            3 hours ago












          • @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
            – bof
            3 hours ago










          • I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
            – Mong H. Ng
            1 hour ago


















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          $S$ is a set of vectors in $V$ which is not necessarily a subspace of $V$. So you can for example have $S= {v_1,v_2,...}$ However, when you take all linear combinations of vectors in $S$, you get the $span(S)={a_1v_1+a_2v_2+...|a_i in F,v_i in S}$, here $F$ is the underlying field of $v$, which is a subspace of $V$.



          I mean you could have $S subset V$. Take for example $V=mathbb{R}^3$ and $S={(1,0,0),(0,0,1)}$, $Span(S)=x-z plane$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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',
            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%2f3012340%2fdoes-v-contains-s-have-two-different-meanings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            4
            down vote













            Yes. Unfortunately, "$x$ contains $y$" is ambiguous: it can mean either $yin x$ or $ysubseteq x$. Some writers make this distinction between "contains" and "includes": a set contains its elements and includes its subsets. Unfortunately, some do just the opposite, and say that a set includes its elements and contains its subsets. Sorry about that.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
              – Barry Cipra
              3 hours ago












            • @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
              – bof
              3 hours ago










            • I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
              – Mong H. Ng
              1 hour ago















            up vote
            4
            down vote













            Yes. Unfortunately, "$x$ contains $y$" is ambiguous: it can mean either $yin x$ or $ysubseteq x$. Some writers make this distinction between "contains" and "includes": a set contains its elements and includes its subsets. Unfortunately, some do just the opposite, and say that a set includes its elements and contains its subsets. Sorry about that.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
              – Barry Cipra
              3 hours ago












            • @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
              – bof
              3 hours ago










            • I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
              – Mong H. Ng
              1 hour ago













            up vote
            4
            down vote










            up vote
            4
            down vote









            Yes. Unfortunately, "$x$ contains $y$" is ambiguous: it can mean either $yin x$ or $ysubseteq x$. Some writers make this distinction between "contains" and "includes": a set contains its elements and includes its subsets. Unfortunately, some do just the opposite, and say that a set includes its elements and contains its subsets. Sorry about that.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Yes. Unfortunately, "$x$ contains $y$" is ambiguous: it can mean either $yin x$ or $ysubseteq x$. Some writers make this distinction between "contains" and "includes": a set contains its elements and includes its subsets. Unfortunately, some do just the opposite, and say that a set includes its elements and contains its subsets. Sorry about that.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            bof

            48.6k451115




            48.6k451115












            • In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
              – Barry Cipra
              3 hours ago












            • @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
              – bof
              3 hours ago










            • I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
              – Mong H. Ng
              1 hour ago


















            • In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
              – Barry Cipra
              3 hours ago












            • @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
              – bof
              3 hours ago










            • I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
              – Mong H. Ng
              1 hour ago
















            In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
            – Barry Cipra
            3 hours ago






            In Naive Set Theory (1960), Paul Halmos has sets containing their elements and including their subsets. Do you know of any books that do the opposite? (I suspect some authors may use one word, or both, in both senses, but it'd be good to have an example or two of that as well.)
            – Barry Cipra
            3 hours ago














            @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
            – bof
            3 hours ago




            @BarryCipra I recall that C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, in (at least) one of his series of papers on well-quasi-ordering, stated explicitly that sets include their elements and contain their subsets. I recall being surprised by this, as I was used to seeing it done the other way. Unfortunately I don't have an exact reference.
            – bof
            3 hours ago












            I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
            – Mong H. Ng
            1 hour ago




            I thought there isnt really an issue, as the context usually gives you a hint about whether it is referring to a set or a single element.
            – Mong H. Ng
            1 hour ago










            up vote
            1
            down vote













            $S$ is a set of vectors in $V$ which is not necessarily a subspace of $V$. So you can for example have $S= {v_1,v_2,...}$ However, when you take all linear combinations of vectors in $S$, you get the $span(S)={a_1v_1+a_2v_2+...|a_i in F,v_i in S}$, here $F$ is the underlying field of $v$, which is a subspace of $V$.



            I mean you could have $S subset V$. Take for example $V=mathbb{R}^3$ and $S={(1,0,0),(0,0,1)}$, $Span(S)=x-z plane$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              $S$ is a set of vectors in $V$ which is not necessarily a subspace of $V$. So you can for example have $S= {v_1,v_2,...}$ However, when you take all linear combinations of vectors in $S$, you get the $span(S)={a_1v_1+a_2v_2+...|a_i in F,v_i in S}$, here $F$ is the underlying field of $v$, which is a subspace of $V$.



              I mean you could have $S subset V$. Take for example $V=mathbb{R}^3$ and $S={(1,0,0),(0,0,1)}$, $Span(S)=x-z plane$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                $S$ is a set of vectors in $V$ which is not necessarily a subspace of $V$. So you can for example have $S= {v_1,v_2,...}$ However, when you take all linear combinations of vectors in $S$, you get the $span(S)={a_1v_1+a_2v_2+...|a_i in F,v_i in S}$, here $F$ is the underlying field of $v$, which is a subspace of $V$.



                I mean you could have $S subset V$. Take for example $V=mathbb{R}^3$ and $S={(1,0,0),(0,0,1)}$, $Span(S)=x-z plane$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                $S$ is a set of vectors in $V$ which is not necessarily a subspace of $V$. So you can for example have $S= {v_1,v_2,...}$ However, when you take all linear combinations of vectors in $S$, you get the $span(S)={a_1v_1+a_2v_2+...|a_i in F,v_i in S}$, here $F$ is the underlying field of $v$, which is a subspace of $V$.



                I mean you could have $S subset V$. Take for example $V=mathbb{R}^3$ and $S={(1,0,0),(0,0,1)}$, $Span(S)=x-z plane$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                mathnoob

                80911




                80911






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012340%2fdoes-v-contains-s-have-two-different-meanings%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

                    flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

                    Mangá

                     ⁒  ․,‪⁊‑⁙ ⁖, ⁇‒※‌, †,⁖‗‌⁝    ‾‸⁘,‖⁔⁣,⁂‾
”‑,‥–,‬ ,⁀‹⁋‴⁑ ‒ ,‴⁋”‼ ⁨,‷⁔„ ‰′,‐‚ ‥‡‎“‷⁃⁨⁅⁣,⁔
⁇‘⁔⁡⁏⁌⁡‿‶‏⁨ ⁣⁕⁖⁨⁩⁥‽⁀  ‴‬⁜‟ ⁃‣‧⁕‮ …‍⁨‴ ⁩,⁚⁖‫ ,‵ ⁀,‮⁝‣‣ ⁑  ⁂– ․, ‾‽ ‏⁁“⁗‸ ‾… ‹‡⁌⁎‸‘ ‡⁏⁌‪ ‵⁛ ‎⁨ ―⁦⁤⁄⁕