This set is due Feb. 8 at the beginning of lecture. Of course, let me know if more time is needed or anything like that.

0. During lecture I have sometimes skipped some arguments or not given as much detail as you may have wanted. If there was a result that in particular required of you some effort to complete in detail, please state it here and show me how you filled in the gaps left in lecture. Also, if there is a result for which you do not see how to fill in the details, let me know as well, as I may have overlooked something and it may be worth going back over it in class.

1. Give an example of a bounded set for which

does not exist.

2. Compute .

3. From the book, solve exercises 1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, and 1.1.15.

[To get you started on 1.1.3: First verify in that assigns value 0 to any point. For this, use monotonicity and translation invariance, arguing first that for any . Then find that in terms of , and use this to find for any box with rational coordinates. Use this to compute for any box, and conclude by analyzing arbitrary elementary sets.

Note we essentially solved 1.1.15 in class, but under the assumption that 1.1.6 holds.]

4. From the book, solve Exercises 1.1.7-10. Make sure to explain in 1.1.9 why Tao’s definition of compact convex polytopes coincides with what should be our intuitive definition. Please also verify that convex polytopes are indeed convex.

(For a nice argument verifying that indeed , at least for even values of , see the paper “On the volumes of balls” by Blass and Schanuel, available here.)

5. From the book, solve exercise 1.1.11.

(If you are not comfortable with linear algebra beyond size , at least argue in the plane and in .)

6. From the book, solve exercise 1.1.13.

7. From the book, solve exercise 1.1.17.

43.614000-116.202000

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 1:08 pm and is filed under 515: Analysis II. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

The description below comes from József Beck. Combinatorial games. Tic-tac-toe theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, MR2402857 (2009g:91038). Given a finite set $S$ of points in the plane $\mathbb R^2$, consider the following game between two players Maker and Breaker. The players alternat […]

Yes. This is a consequence of the Davis-Matiyasevich-Putnam-Robinson work on Hilbert's 10th problem, and some standard number theory. A number of papers have details of the $\Pi^0_1$ sentence. To begin with, take a look at the relevant paper in Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert's problems (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Northern Illinois Un […]

I am looking for references discussing two inequalities that come up in the study of the dynamics of Newton's method on real-valued polynomials (in one variable). The inequalities are fairly different, but it seems to make sense to ask about both of them in the same post. Most of the details below are fairly elementary, they are mostly included for comp […]

Let $C$ be the standard Cantor middle-third set. As a consequence of the Baire category theorem, there are numbers $r$ such that $C+r$ consists solely of irrational numbers, see here. What would be an explicit example of a number $r$ with this property? Short of an explicit example, are there any references addressing this question? A natural approach would […]

First of all, $f(z)+e^z\ne 0$ by the first inequality. It follows that $e^z/(f(z)+e^z)$ is entire, and bounded above. You should be able to conclude from that.

Yes. The standard way of defining these sequences goes by assigning in an explicit fashion to each limit ordinal $\alpha$, for as long as possible, an increasing sequence $\alpha_n$ that converges to $\alpha$. Once this is done, we can define $f_\alpha$ by diagonalizing, so $f_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha_n}(n)$ for all $n$. Of course there are many possible choices […]

I disagree with the advice of sending a paper to a journal before searching the relevant literature. It is almost guaranteed that a paper on the fundamental theorem of algebra (a very classical and well-studied topic) will be rejected if you do not include mention on previous proofs, and comparisons, explaining how your proof differs from them, etc. It is no […]

No, the rank of a set $x$ is the least $\alpha$ such that $x\in V_{\alpha+1}$. Note that if $\alpha$ is limit, any $x\in V_\alpha$ belongs to some $V_\beta$ with $\beta

(I have added a missing prime in the hint on question 3.) Thanks to Tara for noticing it.