The Americans and the French use a different notation for open intervals: The Americans use (x, y) while the French use ]x, y[. How did this notational divergence appear?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The square brackets notation is due to Bourbaki. $\endgroup$ Oct 30 '14 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ @AndresCaicedo Thanks, I had no idea it was so recent. Do you know why they chose this notation? $\endgroup$ Oct 30 '14 at 17:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Some discussion on this topic here and here. One commenter suggest that the backward brackets might have been introduced by Bourbaki to prevent confusion with ordered pairs. I am still at a loss for a documented history, but it is at least a part of an old ISO standard. I am not seeing it in the latest standard ISO 80000-2. $\endgroup$ Oct 30 '14 at 18:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess it is intuitive (inclusion/exclusion of the endpoints depends on the direction of the bracket), but I have not found anything written by them stating this or some other motivation explicitly. $\endgroup$ Oct 30 '14 at 18:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @J.W.Perry Thanks! I had indeed went through the standard for that reason, see notation 2-6.10 last column. $\endgroup$ Oct 30 '14 at 23:54

Notation $()$ is traditional, and $].[$ was introduced by Bourbaki.

Much of the Bourbaki notations and terminology became standard, but English speaking people are the most conservative ones in this respect:-) (Recall the history of the metric system:-)

Another example of the same is "injection", "surjection", "bijection". Many English authors still write "one-to-one", "onto" and "one-to-one and onto".

Another example: Bourbaki taught us that "positive" is $\geq 0$, and "strictly positive" is $>0$.

But many people still prefer "positive" to mean $>0$ and "non-negative" for $\geq0$.

Remark. I am educated in Ukraine in 1970-s, and I experienced a strong influence of Bourbaki on education. But I still like $(,)$, perhaps just for aesthetic reasons.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, very interesting, I had no idea that the definition "positive" is $\geq 0$ was from Bourbaki as well, I am always having trouble with that in the US. $\endgroup$ Nov 1 '14 at 20:14
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ A friend of mine asked a member of Bourbaki, let's call him X-X. X, about this and indeed the usage is due to Bourbaki. X-X. X said Bourbaki wanted to allow the notation $\subset$ to include the possibility of equality, and not just mean a strict subset. Compatibly with that, they wanted $<$ to mean less than or equal to and $>$ to mean greater than or equal to. This is why Bourbaki started using the word positif to mean greater than or equal to 0. $\endgroup$
    – KCd
    May 1 '15 at 4:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, and Bourbaki had partial success: everyone uses $\subset$ nowadays in their sense. $\endgroup$ May 1 '15 at 11:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AlexandreEremenko: From my, admittedly rather limited, experience I'd say the opposite is (still) true: since $<$ is usually interpreted as a strict inequality, I do prefer writing $\subseteq$ for (not necessarily strict) inclusion. $\endgroup$ May 30 '17 at 14:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Yes, and Bourbaki had partial success: everyone uses ⊂ nowadays in their sense." Who is everyone? If you see him, tell him that he is wrong. $\endgroup$
    – Otto
    May 30 '17 at 20:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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