Subscripts actually under a union of sets sign

In summary, the symbol {\bigcup}_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} can be typeset as {\bigcup}_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} or {\bigcup}_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} \bigcup_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty}. However, it is more concise to typeset the term as {\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \in
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I recently made a post on Linear and Abstract Algebra and used the following symbol

\(\displaystyle {\bigcup}_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} \)

However, I really wanted (for neatness and clarity) to have the term \(\displaystyle {\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} \) actually under the set union symbol as in the commutative algebra text by R.Y. Sharp - see attachment page 7 exercise 1.12.

Can someone please help in this matter?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Peter said:
I recently made a post on Linear and Abstract Algebra and used the following symbol

\(\displaystyle {\bigcup}_{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} \)

However, I really wanted (for neatness and clarity) to have the term \(\displaystyle {\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty} \) actually under the set union symbol as in the commutative algebra text by R.Y. Sharp - see attachment page 7 exercise 1.12.

Can someone please help in this matter?

Peter

Hmm, let's see if this works...

\(\displaystyle \underset{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty}{{\bigcup}}\)

It does! Here you go:

\underset{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty}{{\bigcup}}
 
  • #3
Jameson said:
Hmm, let's see if this works...

\(\displaystyle \underset{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty}{{\bigcup}}\)

It does! Here you go:

\underset{\Omega \subseteq \Gamma , | \Omega | \lt \infty}{{\bigcup}}

Thanks Jameson, appreciate the help

Peter
 
  • #4
If subscripts and superscripts of big operators are typeset below and above the operator, they are referred to as limits. Whether TeX uses limits depends on whether the formula is in display style (limits are used) or text style (normal sub- and superscipts are used). By default, inline formulas beginning with \( and $ are typeset in text style, while those beginning with \[ and $$ use display style. (Note that $$ is deprecated, at least in PDF documents.) The tags [math]...[/math] on this site apparently create an inline formula but use display style. The style determines many other parameters besides whether to use limits; most noticeable are the size of operators and fractions.

You used the [math] tag, so the formula is in display style, but you enclosed \bigcup in curly braces. This turned it into a generic subformula and TeX did not take into account that inside is a big operator, which treats subscripts in a special way. That's why the subscript was not made into a limit.

Without changing the position of a formula (display or inline), its style can be modified using \displaystyle and \textstyle commands. Independently of this, you can type \limits or \nolimits immediately after a big operator to direct TeX to use limits or not.

Edit: See https://driven2services.com/staging/mh/index.php?threads/283/ for examples of formulas in display style and text style.

Edit 2: The info above relates to big operators (in TeX terminology) like \bigcup. The command \underset can be used in other contexts.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Interesting and good to know, Evgeny.Makarov! I'll test this out.

Here is without putting \bigcup in curly brackets:

\(\displaystyle \bigcup_{\text{testing if this works}}\)

And here is with curly brackets:

\(\displaystyle {\bigcup}_{\text{testing if this works}}\)

Yep, this way is much faster than my solution. :D
 
  • #6
Evgeny.Makarov said:
If subscripts and superscripts of big operators are typeset below and above the operator, they are referred to as limits. Whether TeX uses limits depends on whether the formula is in display style (limits are used) or text style (normal sub- and superscipts are used). By default, inline formulas beginning with \( and $ are typeset in text style, while those beginning with \[ and $$ use display style. (Note that $$ is deprecated, at least in PDF documents.) The tags [math]...[/math] on this site apparently create an inline formula but use display style. The style determines many other parameters besides whether to use limits; most noticeable are the size of operators and fractions.

You used the [math] tag, so the formula is in display style, but you enclosed \bigcup in curly braces. This turned it into a generic subformula and TeX did not take into account that inside is a big operator, which treats subscripts in a special way. That's why the subscript was not made into a limit.

Without changing the position of a formula (display or inline), its style can be modified using \displaystyle and \textstyle commands. Independently of this, you can type \limits or \nolimits immediately after a big operator to direct TeX to use limits or not.

Edit: See https://driven2services.com/staging/mh/index.php?threads/283/ for examples of formulas in display style and text style.

Edit 2: The info above relates to big operators (in TeX terminology) like \bigcup. The command \underset can be used in other contexts.

Thanks Evgeny

A most informative post!

Peter
 

FAQ: Subscripts actually under a union of sets sign

What is a subscript under a union of sets sign?

A subscript is a small number or symbol written below and to the right of the union of sets sign (∪). This notation is used to indicate which sets are being combined in the union operation.

How is a subscript used in set theory?

In set theory, a subscript under a union of sets sign is used to represent the index of a set in a sequence of sets being combined. It allows for a concise representation of multiple sets being united into one set.

Can a subscript be used for other mathematical operations besides union of sets?

Yes, subscripts can be used for other mathematical operations, such as intersection (∩), Cartesian product (×), and tensor product (⊗). They serve the same purpose of indicating the index of a set in a sequence of sets being operated on.

How does the order of subscripts affect the result of a union of sets?

The order of subscripts does not affect the result of a union of sets. This is because the union operation is commutative, meaning the order in which sets are combined does not change the final result.

Are there any rules for using subscripts under a union of sets sign?

There are no specific rules for using subscripts under a union of sets sign, but it is important to use them consistently and clearly indicate which sets are being united. It is also important to ensure that all subscripts are unique and do not repeat within a single expression.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
885
3
Replies
100
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top