I'm often writing equations with quantifiers like these:
\begin{equation*}
x_i \quad \forall i = 1, \dotsc, n
\end{equation*}
I've read this answer, but I'm not sure if my case is an example for a situation where one uses EM quad.
So my first question is, would you put a \quad space at that position?
The second question is, would you separate the first part from the quantifier with a comma like:
\begin{equation*}
x_i \quad , \forall i = 1, \dotsc, n
\end{equation*}
\forall:x_{i},\qquad i=1,2,\dots,nI think that the quantifier is even mathematically wrong (at least in several cases I see). Note that you don't need\dotsc, because\dotsis able to figure out what follows.\dotscis needed only if you have an open ended enumeration, such asi=1,2,\dotsc– egreg Nov 20 '15 at 21:41\forallseems wrong. I don't know if mathematicians use it differently. Or don't remember well enough to be sure. But logically, it doesn't make sense. – cfr Nov 20 '15 at 22:52x_iis a boolean valued predicate, then it makes sense although would more normally be written with the quantifier first,\forall i \in \{1,\dots\n\} . x_i– David Carlisle Nov 20 '15 at 23:27=combined with the\forallwhich didn't make sense. (Although, logically, I'm inclined to see theiinx_ias unbound.)\forall i \in \{...for\text{for } i=1,\dots. It's the combination which doesn't look wff-like to me. – cfr Nov 20 '15 at 23:45