[zero-sharp]

My guess is that most mathematicians wouldn't consider that notation abusive. Why do you think it is? That notation is a convenience that allows us to represent a sum over a set where the elements aren't indexed by integers. So, in this particular case, I think there is a utility to the notation. And also: the definition of \sum_{e\in S} is ubiquitous.

[hallole]

I'm not a mathematician, but I went decently far into math and hardly ever encountered a summation over non-indexed elements, or really anything beyond the standard \Sum_{i=1}^{n}, even up to my final math courses.

I wasn't aware of its ubiquity! I may only think of it as "abusive" due to lack of familiarity. The way I've seen it used is: \Sum_{e \in S} e_i, where 'i' is never explicitly defined, and this still assumes elements indexed by integers. The only utility seems to be from the abbreviation, leaving out the range of indices being iterated over. Not saying that isn't useful, but the rigor of the math probably doesn't benefit from time-saving omissions.

[gizmo686]

> \Sum_{e \in S} e_i

I'm tempted to call that notation simply wrong instead of abusive. Generally "abusive" notation, while technically wrong, has some redeeming feature in intuition or consicebess.

In this case, the alternative notation would be to simply drop the index and write "\Sum_{e \in S} e", which seems to be all around better.

From having spent way too much time doing technical writing; I'm tempted to say the notation you are recalling really was a mistake. They probably started out with "\Sum_{e \in S} e", then decided to make all summations be index based instead of set based. Unless you spend a lot of time proofreading, that type of style change can easily lead to half translated expressions like what you recall.