# Talk:Equivalence of Definitions of Independent Subgroups

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

Why the abuse of notation $[1..k]$ instead of the more correct $\{1,\ldots,k\}$? --Lord_Farin 02:52, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

- It emphasises the fact that the subgroups are a sequence. I don't see that $[1..k]$ is abuse - it's just an integer interval. --prime mover 03:39, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
- ... and I've checked back to my source work: it's precisely the notation used in 1965: Seth Warner:
*Modern Algebra*(except he uses the less modern form $[1,k]$). --prime mover 03:41, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

- ... and I've checked back to my source work: it's precisely the notation used in 1965: Seth Warner:

- Well, IMO it will then be difficult to separate it from the other $[1..k]$, the real interval. I suspected that there would be a page defining this notation... I still feel that it may lead to ambiguity, so maybe a distinguishing feature needs to be added. --Lord_Farin 04:05, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

- My view is that in context it's clear enough, because if $[1..k]$ were to be taken as a real interval it would not make sense. But I take your point, and I have added an appropriate note in the page. Perhaps this needs to be carried forward to other pages where this notation is used. --prime mover 05:00, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Fair enough; text seems to have the ability to distinguish ;) --Lord_Farin 05:05, 14 April 2012 (EDT)