3

I was wondering whether there is standard notation for a polynomial of a certain degree, say, $k$. That is, I want to be able to write $<standard \text{ } notation> $ instead of "..., where $p(x)$ is a polynomial of degree $k$."

Does such a thing exist? For example, would $p^k(x)$ do the trick? I don't really see it as self-evident that it would, but there might be better notation out there.

Ryker
  • 1,499
  • 1
    I think $p(x)\in \mathbb F_k[x]$ is standard. – Git Gud Jun 22 '14 at 23:11
  • @GitGud, I like your suggestion. – Ryker Jun 22 '14 at 23:26
  • 4
    @GitGud, that's possibly confused for a finite field if your $k$ is a prime power. – Kaj Hansen Jun 22 '14 at 23:28
  • 1
    @KajHansen You're right, I had never though about that. Still I think it's standard. Edit: Maybe it's standard only for fields of characteristic $0$ or maybe I got confused and the standard notation is $P_k\left(\mathbb F[x]\right)$. – Git Gud Jun 22 '14 at 23:29
  • 2
    @GitGud: I have never seen that notation and it seems quite confusing. For example, if your field is $\mathbb{Q}$ then does $\in \mathbb{Q}_2[x]$ mean a quadratic polynomial or does it mean a polynomial over the $2$-adic numbers? – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 23 '14 at 00:02
  • 1
    $\mathbb{R}[x]_d$ is used for denoting polynomials of degree at most $d$. See for instance the notation section of the book: "Semidefinite Optimization and Convex Algebraic Geometry" of Blekherman, Parrilo, Thomas. – Benoît Legat Sep 15 '21 at 14:34

3 Answers3

3

How about p(x) = $\sum_{i=0}^k x^i a_i$? Maybe not what you're looking for, but the shorter than what you have already :)

Kristoffer
  • 83
  • 5
  • 2
    nitpicking on an almost decade-old answer: for $p(x)$ to have degree $k$ you would have to write $p(x) = \sum_0^k x^i a_i$, $a_k \neq 0$. – Joe Stephen Mar 31 '22 at 21:49
3

I would write

$p\in\Bbb F[x],\ \deg(p)=k\,$.

Berci
  • 90,745
1

Polynomials (of degree $n$) are almost always written as $$a_0+a_1x+\cdots+a_nx^n$$ or more compactly as $$\sum_{k=0}^n a_kx^k.$$

  • 1
    I should've just gone with this, I guess, but then I feel compelled to add "for some $a_k \in \mathbb{R}$" or something of that nature :) Which is fine, of course, but I was hoping to get something that doesn't require any "where"'s. – Ryker Jun 22 '14 at 23:23