Note: $F$ is a class of sets.
I was solving a problem in Apostol's Calculus Volume 1. It is to show that
$$B-\bigcup_{A\in F} A=\bigcap_{A\in F}(B-A)\qquad\text{ and }\qquad B-\bigcap_{A\in F} A=\bigcup_{A\in F}(B-A)$$
so I thought that rather than repeating the problem just with $\bigcup$ and $\bigcap$ switched, why not create the notation of a circle with one half filled in to be like $\pm$ for the big cup and cap? In other words, see the attached image.
The motivation for using this particular symbol should be clear because the one with a the bottom half colored black leaves only a semicircle at the top which is kinda $\bigcap$, and similarly the one with the top half colored black leaves a semicircular segment at the bottom which looks like $\bigcup$. But of course I do not mean to say that the one with the top colored black should denote $\bigcup$, nor that the one with the bottom colored black should denote $\bigcap$; rather, I am just using the symbols in the same way as say $\pm$ and $\mp$ are used in $$\tan(a\pm b)=\frac{\tan a\pm \tan b}{1\mp \tan a\tan b},$$ to write two formulas in one. I hope this makes sense, please tell me what you think.
Or maybe there is already a convention for this, in which case I would like to hear about it.
Thanks!
It's not awful, at least as an idea, but I would certainly say it's unnecessary, and I strongly dislike your particular notation choice. Basically it's a symbol that's too different and unintuitive to have to remember for too unimportant and uncommon a situation to be worthwhile.
In my experience, once one gets to mathematics classes, textbooks, etc. that assume a certain level of mathematical maturity, people would not write any statement like
but would write
or maybe, if both versions were important to point out separately,
or just not comment on the "flipped" version at all:
The same is true with $\bigcap$ and $\bigcup$, or dualizing basic things in category theory, or anything similar.