Suppose I want to define a set of elements satisfying two conditions, such as:
$\{ f(x,y) \mid 2<x<5, 7<y<10 \}$
Semantically, I am using the comma character to separate the two clauses of the definition, 2<x<5
and 7<y<10
. But TeX treats the comma in math mode as a regular math symbol, with no extra spacing around it and not allowing a line break after it. By contrast, the relation symbol <
does seem to be surrounded by slightly more space, and TeX allows a line break after it. As a consequence, if a line break is necessary inside this set definition (in inline math mode), TeX will allow it after <
but not after ,
--- which is contrary to the intended parsing of the content.
It may be possible to solve these visual problems by adding \allowbreak
(or some other solution) and manually forcing a math-mode space. But in the spirit of TeX's goal of separating content from layout, I get the impression that I'm missing something. It seems that the comma symbol is not the correct character for this purpose.
An alternative to the comma might be an ampersand, as in:
$\{ f(x,y) \mid 2<x<5 \& 7<y<10 \}$
But &
is an ordinary math character just like ,
, so that this doesn't solve any problem.
What is the semantically correct way to separate clauses in a set definition?
\&
from consideration.