I'm reading a paper that refers to a set $\mathcal{N}$, without defining it. It's a CS paper so it's not complicated maths. Is this the set of natural numbers? I don't get why they're using this style of N over a blackboard N.
Thanks
I'm reading a paper that refers to a set $\mathcal{N}$, without defining it. It's a CS paper so it's not complicated maths. Is this the set of natural numbers? I don't get why they're using this style of N over a blackboard N. Thanks 

closed as off topic by Andreas Thom, Martin Brandenburg, Felipe Voloch, Mark Sapir, Gerald Edgar Jul 20 '11 at 12:44Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 


In 'PRIMES is in P' (for example), yes these are the natural numbers. There are various authors that do not use $\mathbb{N}$, and more generally do not use blackboard bold at all in print. As I mentioned on a recent question JeanPierre Serre is on record against balckboard bold (except on black boards). Though, a more typical choice then is $\mathbf{N}$, so standard bold. I could imagine that in CS, in particular when complexity classes are around, one wishes to have more optical distance between capital letters denoting complexity classes and those denoting sets. But this is mainly a guess. 

