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.

I am not sure which statement you heard as the "Ultimate $L$ axiom," but I will assume it is the following version: There is a proper class of Woodin cardinals, and for all sentences $\varphi$ that hold in $V$, there is a universally Baire set $A\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ such that, letting $\theta=\Theta^{L(A,{\mathbb R})}$, we have that $HOD^{L(A,{\ma […]

A Wadge initial segment (of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$) is a subset $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ such that whenever $A\in\Gamma$ and $B\le_W A$, where $\le_W$ denotes Wadge reducibility, then $B\in\Gamma$. Note that if $\Gamma\subseteq\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ and $L(\Gamma,\mathbb R)\models \Gamma=\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$, then $\Gamma$ is a Wadge initial se […]

Craig: For a while, there was some research on improving bounds on the number of variables or degree of unsolvable Diophantine equations. Unfortunately, I never got around to cataloging the known results in any systematic way, so all I can offer is some pointers to relevant references, but I am not sure of what the current records are. Perhaps the first pape […]

Yes. Consider, for instance, Conway's base 13 function $c$, or any function that is everywhere discontinuous and has range $\mathbb R$ in every interval. Pick continuous bijections $f_n:\mathbb R\to(-1/n,1/n)$ for $n\in\mathbb N^+$. Pick a strictly decreasing sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge1}$ converging to $0$. Define $f$ by setting $f(x)=0$ if $x=0$ or $\pm x_n […]

(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 study of finite choice axioms is quite interesting. Besides the reference given in Asaf's answer, there are a few papers covering this topic in detail. If you can track it down, I suggest you read MR0360275 (50 #12725) Reviewed. Conway, J. H. Effective implications between the "finite'' choice axioms. In Cambridge Summer School in Mat […]

I feel this question may be a duplicate, because I am pretty certain I first saw the paper I mention below in an answer here. You may be interested in reading the following: MR2141502 (2006c:68092) Reviewed. Calude, Cristian S.(NZ-AUCK-C); Jürgensen, Helmut(3-WON-C). Is complexity a source of incompleteness? (English summary), Adv. in Appl. Math. 35 (2005), […]

The smallest such ordinal is $0$ because you defined your rank (height) inappropriately (only successor ordinals are possible). You want to define the rank of a node without successors as $0$, and of a node $a$ with successors as the supremum of the set $\{\alpha+1\mid\alpha$ is the rank of an immediate successor of $a\}$. With this modification, the smalles […]

The perfect reference for this is MR2562557 (2010j:03061) Reviewed. Steel, J. R.(1-CA). The derived model theorem. In Logic Colloquium 2006. Proceedings of Annual European Conference on Logic of the Association for Symbolic Logic held at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 27–August 2, 2006, S. B. Cooper, H. Geuvers, A. Pillay and J. Väänänen, eds., Lectu […]

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