Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've encountered a working paper in which the author discusses two different notions about the legitimate definition of a certain functional. He expresses these notions using the universal and existential quantifiers:

Notion 1: $\forall \theta \in \Theta : f(\phi(\cdot), \theta) \equiv \int_{\mathbb{R}}\ \phi(x)g(x,\theta)dx$

Notion 2: $\exists \theta^{*} \in \Theta : f(\phi(\cdot), \theta^{\*} ) \equiv \int_{\mathbb{R}}\ \phi(x)g(x,\theta^{\*})dx$

where $\theta^*$ is to be thought of as the element of $\Theta$ which actually obtains in physical reality.

Is this a legitimate use of the quantifiers?

share|improve this question
    
Without further context, both of those look like legitimate statements to me. "Actually obtains in physical reality" is not a mathematical concept, without making further modelling assumptions explicit. –  Yemon Choi Jun 13 '12 at 2:06
    
The context is statistics. Θ is the parameter space, and the functional is an expectation. In notion 2, the idea is to restrict consideration of the functional to just the physically real value of the parameter. I confess to being surprised that this is legitimate -- I thought such quantifiers could only be applied to a formula with a free variable, yielding a proposition with a definite truth value (or another formula with a free variable, of course). –  Cyan Jun 13 '12 at 2:20
    
As a guide to thinking about this, one might look at partial versus total functions in universal algebra and/or recursion theory. 2 looks to me like the definition of a nontrivial partial functional. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.06.12 –  Gerhard Paseman Jun 13 '12 at 2:26
    
To answer the question two ways: the short answer is that I do not have enough context to know what laws he is breaking; the long answer is that I can imagine situations where such definitions are legitimate, but I do not know if they are correct or even appropriate for the situation used by this person. Gerhard "Looking For Medium Length Answers" Paseman, 2012.06.12 –  Gerhard Paseman Jun 13 '12 at 2:31
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

It's not clear to me whether the line "where $\theta^*$ ... physical reality" is intended to be part of Notion 2, perhaps even within the scope of the existential quantifier on $\theta^*$. The formatting suggests that it is not. On that reading, both notions look like legitimate statements, but Notion 2 does not look like a "legitimate definition of a certain functional". There could be many functionals $f$ that satisfy Notion 2, for different values of $\theta^*$. The terminology "the element of $\Theta$ which actually obtains" suggests that $\theta^*$ is regarded as unique, which it might not be.

So let me consider the alternative reading, where the specification of $\theta^*$ from physical reality is considered part of Notion 2. Of course, on this reading, Notion 2 is no longer a mathematical statement. Furthermore, it still doesn't define the functional $f$, because $f$ could have entirely arbitrary values whenever its second argument differs from the actual physical $\theta^*$.

I'm inclined to conclude (until somebody shows me a better reading) that Notion 2, though it might be a well-formed mathematical statement, does not serve as a definition of a functional $f$. My guess as to the author's intention is that $\theta^*$ should be fixed first, on physical grounds, and then Notion 2 should be stated for just this one value of $\theta^*$, without an existential quantifier and without a second argument in $f$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.