Talk:Sequence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos |
imported>Catherine Woodgold (→defined on the natural numbers: done.) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:''"Formally, given any set ''X'', an infinite sequence is a function (''f'', say) defined on the [[natural numbers]] <math>\{1,2,3,...\}</math>, with values in ''X''. "'' | :''"Formally, given any set ''X'', an infinite sequence is a function (''f'', say) defined on the [[natural numbers]] <math>\{1,2,3,...\}</math>, with values in ''X''. "'' | ||
(I'm not sure whether to include zero in the natural numbers.) --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 08:12, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | (I'm not sure whether to include zero in the natural numbers.) --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 08:12, 28 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Done. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 10:14, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Simple example? == | == Simple example? == |
Revision as of 09:14, 29 April 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK] |
Article status | Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | --AlekStos 02:57, 10 March 2007 (CST) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
defined on the natural numbers
I would like to change this:
- "Formally, given any set X, an infinite sequence is a function (f, say) defined on a subset of natural numbers with values in X. "
to this:
- "Formally, given any set X, an infinite sequence is a function (f, say) defined on the natural numbers , with values in X. "
(I'm not sure whether to include zero in the natural numbers.) --Catherine Woodgold 08:12, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
- Done. --Catherine Woodgold 10:14, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Simple example?
This is given as a "simple example" of a sequence of complex numbers:
How about a simpler example, where it's easy to predict the next term? e.g.
--Catherine Woodgold 08:20, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
- I wouldn't object any proposed changes, the formal definition above included (well I thought a while about this definition and I think there would be no harm if the term "subset" gets deleted). As for 0 in naturals, nothing is "globally" decided, so probably both solutions are possible (I'd start with 1).--AlekStos 11:55, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- Mathematics Category Check
- General Category Check
- Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Mathematics Advanced Articles
- Mathematics Nonstub Articles
- Mathematics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Mathematics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Mathematics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Mathematics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Mathematics External Articles
- Mathematics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Mathematics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Cleanup