# I have a set of nonzero vectors in RR^n, where for each vector, its nonzero elements have the same magnitude. For example, when n=4, (1,0,1,0) and (−3,3,0,3) are in this set, while (1,2,3,2) and (0,0,0,0) are not. The formal notation I came up for it is {x in RR^n∣x != 0 text( and ) x_i in {0,k,−k} text( for some ) k in R} but I'm not sure if the "for some k" part is correct. Should it be "for all k" instead?

I have a set of nonzero vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, where for each vector, its nonzero elements have the same magnitude. For example, when $n=4$, $\left(1,0,1,0\right)$ and $\left(-3,3,0,3\right)$ are in this set, while $\left(1,2,3,2\right)$ and $\left(0,0,0,0\right)$ are not.
The formal notation I came up for it is

but I'm not sure if the "for some k" part is correct. Should it be "for all k" instead?
You can still ask an expert for help

• Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

• Math expert for every subject
• Pay only if we can solve it

Elias Keller
If you say "${x}_{i}\in \left\{0,k,-k\right\}$ for all $k\in \mathbb{R}$" then you say that ${x}_{i}$ belongs to every $\left\{0,k,-k\right\}$, which is not possible unless ${x}_{i}=0.$. And you do not want that for every i.
What you wrote is OK but could be mis-interpreted.
You could also write $\left\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}:x\ne 0\wedge \mathrm{\exists }k\in \mathbb{R}\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall }i\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\left({x}_{i}\in \left\{0,k,-k\right\}\right)\right\}.$
If you want to be annoyingly rigorous but still right, you could write ${\cup }_{k\in \mathbb{R}}\left(\left\{0,k,-k{\right\}}^{n}\right)\setminus \left\{0{\right\}}^{n}.$