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 .)

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.

Stefan, "low" cardinalities do not change by passing from $L({\mathbb R})$ to $L({\mathbb R})[{\mathcal U}]$, so the answer to the second question is that the existence of a nonprincipal ultrafilter does not imply the existence of a Vitali set. More precisely: Assume determinacy in $L({\mathbb R})$. Then $2^\omega/E_0$ is a successor cardinal to ${ […]

Marginalia to a theorem of Silver (see also this link) by Keith I. Devlin and R. B. Jensen, 1975. A humble title and yet, undoubtedly, one of the most important papers of all time in set theory.

Given a positive integer $a$, the Ramsey number $R(a)$ is the least $n$ such that whenever the edges of the complete graph $K_n$ are colored using only two colors, we necessarily have a copy of $K_a$ with all its edges of the same color. For example, $R(3)= 6$, which is usually stated by saying that in a party of 6 people, necessarily there are 3 that know e […]

No, this is not consistent. Todorčević has shown in ZF that, in fact, there is no function $F\!:\mathcal W(S)\to S$ with the property you require. Here, $\mathcal W(S)$ is the collection of subsets of $S$ that are well-orderable. This is corollary 6 in MR0793235 (87d:03126). Todorčević, Stevo. Partition relations for partially ordered sets. Acta Math. 155 (1 […]

As suggested by Gerald, the notion was first introduced for groups. Given a directed system of groups, their direct limit was defined as a quotient of their direct product (which was referred to as their "weak product"). The general notion is a clear generalization, although the original reference only deals with groups. As mentioned by Cameron Zwa […]

When I first saw the question, I remembered there was a proof on MO using Ramsey theory, but couldn't remember how the argument went, so I came up with the following, that I first posted as a comment: A cute proof using Schur's theorem: Fix $a$ in your semigroup $S$, and color $n$ and $m$ with the same color whenever $a^n=a^m$. By Schur's theo […]

It depends on what you are doing. I assume by lower level you really mean high level, or general, or 2-digit class. In that case, 54 is general topology, 26 is real functions, 03 is mathematical logic and foundations. "Point-set topology" most likely refers to the stuff in 54, or to the theory of Baire functions, as in 26A21, or to descriptive set […]

In the presence of the axiom of foundation, it is true as you indicate that no set belongs to itself, and so the definition of transitive set can be written with $\subset$ (or $\subsetneq$, whichever symbol you prefer). However, one may study also set theories where foundation fails, and then it is natural to define transitive sets in a way that allows self- […]

You do not need much to recover the full ultrapower. In fact, the $\Sigma_1$-weak Skolem hull should suffice, where the latter is defined by using not all Skolem functions but only those for $\Sigma_1$-formulas, and not even that, but only those functions defined as follows: given a $\Sigma_1$ formula $\varphi(t,y_1,\dots,y_n)$, let $f_\varphi:{}^nN\to N$ be […]

I posted this originally as a comment to Alex's answer but, at his suggestion, I am expanding it into a proper answer. This situation actually occurs in practice in infinitary combinatorics: we use the axiom of choice to establish the existence of an object, but its uniqueness then follows without further appeals to choice. I point this out to emphasize […]

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