Talk:Sequence

Is there a sequence of complete sentences as teachers have to for linguistics?

Sentence sequencing of grammar and education of students like us. 124.106.137.110 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Is sequence meant for linguistics to help with complete sentences.

Nonono! Not just for math please!!! 124.106.137.149 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary entry. The dictionary definition of sequence at Wiktionary contains such a definition. D.Lazard (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

See also sequence (disambiguation), which is linked in a prominent place at the article top. You might wish to check that disambiguation whether it mentions your linguistic meaning of "sequence". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Treating sequence elements as individual variables

I just saw the recent edits "variables"-->"constants"-->"variables". Reading the complete section, I noted that I don't understand what the following text is intended to mean at all:

It is often useful to combine this notation with the technique of treating the elements of a sequence as individual variables. This yields expressions like $(a_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$, which denotes a sequence whose nth element is given by the variable $a_{n}$. For example:

${\begin{aligned}a_{1}&=1{\text{st element of }}(a_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }\\a_{2}&=2{\text{nd element }}\\a_{3}&=3{\text{rd element }}\\&\vdots \\a_{n-1}&=(n-1){\text{th element}}\\a_{n}&=n{\text{th element}}\\a_{n+1}&=(n+1){\text{th element}}\\&\vdots \end{aligned}}$

One can consider multiple sequences at the same time by using different variables; e.g. $(b_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$ could be a different sequence than $(a_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$. One can even consider a sequence of sequences: $((a_{m,n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} })_{m\in \mathbb {N} }$ denotes a sequence whose mth term is the sequence $(a_{m,n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$.

It does not have a source which I could consult to learn about its intended meaning. I never heard of the technique described, and it doesn't become clear to me from the text what the technique actually consists in. The <math> table doesn't help me to understand. I suggest to delete that text. The notion "$(a_{n})_{n\in \mathbb {N} }$" can/should be explained in a better way. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What source you have in mind? Indeed the use of the word technique is not needed, being rather pedantic, like other expression to combine this notation with the technique.--109.166.130.34 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The notion of sequence of sequences is an important aspect to be adequately presented, as the enumeration of the elements of the sequence a₁, a₂,....a_k,...a_n-1, with their number of order/index attached. The enumerated elements of the sequence are individual constants, not variables. The variable n runs through the constant values 1, 2, 3, ...k, k+1,...n, n+1, the numbers of order of the elements of the sequence.--109.166.130.34 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For the meaning of Source, see WP:sourcing.

The first sentence of the article says that the elements of a sequence are mathematical objects. This they cn be constants, variables, but also functions, sets, matrices, sequences, ... So sequences of sequence have not a specific importance, and it is not worth to mention them here.

The distinction that you do between constants and variables is useless and does not correspond to the common mathematical usage. Let us consider the sequence $a_{1},a_{2},\dots .$ Unless otherwise specified it elements are simply symbols. In many case, they are implicitly supposed to be variables, with no value specified. If the sequence is a sequence of functions, the value of $a_{i}$ is neither a constant nor a variable.

By the way, I agree with the suggestion of Jochen Burghardt to remove the quoted text (and also that the notation can (and must) be better explained. D.Lazard (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The distinction you say it is not really needed has its value from the point of view of logical propositions that can be stated about the individual terms a_i and thus to the associated sequence of logical propositions about the terms of a numerical sequence like Fibbonaci's. The sequence of logical propositions with singular terms about the individual terms of a numerical sequence that have a common property has the predicate structure P(a_i) (P the common property) and is an (infinite) sequence of logical conjunctions P(a₁) and P(a₂) and....and P(a_n-1) and P(a_n)..The mentioned constants, applied to the example of a sequence of functions are individual functions members in sequence, generally individual constants attached to predicate letters.--109.166.130.34 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How can the mentioned notation be better explained?--109.166.130.34 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sequence variables in propositional functions/variables p_i, q_j - proposed addition to article

The individual terms of (numerical) infinite sequences (like Cullen number, Proth number, etc) can share a common property (like being prime or composite, divisible with an individual number, etc) for which a predicate symbol and underlying domain of discourse D = {a₁, ....a_i, a_i+1...a_n} for the sequence variable a_n (or x_n or (P,C)_n) can be attached. Thus an infinite set of sentences re the individual elements of the (infinite) universe of discourse is generated, as mentioned at talk:open formula and talk:quantifier (logic).--109.166.129.57 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The above is a proposed addition to article.--109.166.129.57 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

One can use sequences to “generate (infinite) universe” in thousands ways, and why namely this is relevant here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd say to give an example of a sequence of logical propositions.--109.166.129.57 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a an article on mathematics. "Domain of discourse", "universe of discourse" are not mathematical terms (they have no meaning in mathematics); they are philosophical terms, which, as far as I know, are not used in philosophy of mathematics. So, these terms do not belong to this article. Moreover, by WP:OR policy, every controversial assertion (as this proposed addition) must be supported by a reliably published citation. As this proposed addition is undoubtedly the result of your own thoughts, it must not be accepted in Wikipedia, per WP:OR. D.Lazard (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting your assertion about these terms being only philosophical terms when they are used in predicate logic in connection to logical quantifiers and specifically the domain of discourse has been defined and used by George Boole the mathematician. This makes Boole just and only a philosopher, not at all mathematician? I see on Wikipedia many philosophers who are also included in mathematicians categories. I think we not need to make a sharp separation between philosophical logic and mathematical logic, they are just logic. You seem to have something against a so-called philosophy invading allegedly strictly mathematical topics such as this one. Re mathematicians or philosophers false dillema, Bertrand Russell in your view would not be a mathematician.--109.166.129.57 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I also do not understand your use of the word undoubtedly against my proposal of addition. It indicates an unacceptable vehemence and rather absolute certainty that my proposed addition could not be found in sources of (mathematical) logic. Or presumably you would want to separate logic sources into philosophical and mathematical and of course then claim that those sources with a philosophical slant are not acceptable because here are mathematical articles and not philosophical.--109.166.129.57 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I also do not understand the high level of controversiality attributed by you to my proposed addition, what is so highly controversial? Or perhaps this labelling is based on the sharp distinction between philosophy and mathematics?!--109.166.129.57 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You mention in the previous section above the enumeration functions, sets, matrices, sequences....beside ordinary terms in simple numerical sequences. The enumeration could include also sentences. I do not undestand your vehemence against the concept of sequences of logical propositions.--109.166.129.57 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What would an example sequence look like? Wouldn't it be a sequence of truth values? Wouldn't it be even a constant sequence repeating "true" forever (since all numbers would have the property under consideration)? Or did I misunderstand you? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

With these specifications (reduction to a sequence of truth values,..) the analyzed example, presumed highly controversial, becomes rather trivial, non-controversial.--109.166.135.70 (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The term sequence, as usually understood even in ordinary language, means a list of elements with an ordering attached. This ordering is done by correspondence to the (ordered) set of non-negative integers.--109.166.135.70 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If you can't present a non-trivial example for what you have in mind, it is pointless to discuss its inclusion in the article. Apparently, you intend to dispense with the "reduction to a sequence of truth values" - did I get you right? How do you want to achieve it? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this supposed distinction between trivial and non-trivial examples about sequences of some elements. Once the ordering has been associated to a set/list of elements the mentioned distinction does not make much sense. The intended example for sequences of propositions could be generated by attaching the predicate is prime to each term of the sequence of Fermat numbers which would have the form PF_n (PF₀, PF₁, PF₂, PF₃,...PF_i.....). These propositions for the first n terms viewed as a conjunction would be false when n is at least 5. Viewed as as a disjunction would be true for all n terms.--109.166.131.125 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you make a literal suggestion for text to be added? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought of something like: "If F_n denotes the nth Fermat number and P(x) means 'x is prime', the the sequence (P(F_n))_n∈ℕ is a sequence of truth values; it is known to start (false, false, false, false, false, true, true, ... true), with xxx^{[exact number, or lower bound, to be provided]} 'true' members, and being yet unknown beyond, as of 2019." Would that match what you have in mind? If yes, what point would you make with this? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This specific example of a sequence of propositions re Fermat numbers would illustrate the general formulation of the text to be added such as: A sequence of logical propositions (regarding each term of an ordinary numerical sequence) can be generated starting from an usual sequence by associating a predicate letter P(a_n) to each term of the sequence a_n. This sequence of propositions can be equivalently viewed as a sequence of associated truth values (true, true, true, true, true, false...., false....(true?), ...false). A specific example given in the following involves Fermat numbers:(.....insert the above example..), but the place of the Fermat sequence of numbers can be taken by any other sequence. These aspects are intented to enhance a clearer understanding of the structure of mathematical proofs and logical propositions involved in these proofs.--109.166.135.233 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be interesting. It is just a special case of the following property:

If f:A₁×...×A_m→B is an m-ary function, and (x_1,n)_n∈ℕ, ..., (x_m,n)_n∈ℕ are m sequences of elements of A₁, ..., A_m, respectively, then (f(x_1,n,...,x_m,n))_n∈ℕ is a sequence of elements of B,

which is pretty obvious. In your case, m=1, and my f is your P. I found some special cases stated in the article (e.g. in section "Sequence spaces": "... vector space under the operations of pointwise addition of functions and pointwise scalar multiplication ..."). I don't see that choosing B={true,false} is of sufficient particular interest to justify an extra sentence. I also didn't understand why infinite sequences of booleans could be related to proofs, which have to be finite; your Fermat number example doesn't involve any proof. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Re the use of sequences of propositions in proofs about the general term of a sequence, the type of proofs is perhaps proof by cases (and also involving counterexamples when necessary) to see what truth value has the proposition generated by attachment of a predicate to each of the terms of the sequence. This proof is done by inspecting each(individual) term of the sequence like that of Fermat where the first 5 checked cases generate true propositions and then give false propositions. The general term generally gives false propositions re Fermat numbers or true propositions if the initial predicate is prime is replaced with its negation is composite.--109.166.133.226 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The m-ary function given by you applies to the case of non-monadic predicates, starting from at least binary predicates (where m=2,3,...).--109.166.133.226 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The mentioned section which includes the subsection Sequence spaces has the name relating to "other fields of mathematics". So in this section there should be a subsection with the name Mathematical logic including the sequences of propositions (as used in proof by cases for each term of an infinite sequence).--109.166.133.226 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Statements re relation between the individual elements of 2 or more (m) sequences can be viewed as m-adic/ary predicates.--109.166.139.92 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Interleave sequence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; Interleave sequence is a distinct subtopic, concise but worthy of separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

---

The article Interleave sequence is currently a stub, and I cannot imagine how it could ever evolve to not be a stub. Thus, making it a subsection of this article seems like the right thing to do. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No. This article is the wrong merge target for that one. It is too specific and this one too general. The material to be merged would not fit in well here. Also, your failure of imagination is not a valid merge reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary. Short articles are fine as long as the scope is well defined. (But this could certainly be expanded to significant length if anyone cared enough to do the research). –jacobolus (t) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.