DOCSLIB.ORG

Un-Real Analysis Why Mathematics Is So Counterintuitive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Un-Real Analysis Why Mathematics Is So Counterintuitive Un-Real Analysis Why Mathematics is so Counterintuitive Pravin K. Johri The first course in Real Analysis or Analysis is shocking to most students. Mathematics is suddenly counterintuitive and so difficult to comprehend. In comparison, Calculus was a piece of cake. Now the professor seems to be speaking an entirely different language. This course starts with the development of finite set theory. A finite set is a very simple concept and easy to comprehend. Then, an infinite set is introduced and it is all downhill from this point onwards. This paper lays out many of the concepts in Real Analysis. Some are clear and intuitive, some are strange, and some are just bizarre. Finite Sets A finite set is defined as a fixed collection of distinct objects. The size or cardinality of a finite set is defined as the count of the objects in the set. There is a single noteworthy theorem to equate the cardinality of two sets if a bijection or one-to-one correspondence can be established between them. The best practical use of finite sets is in Venn diagrams. 1 Infinite Sets and the Two Notions of Infinity An infinite set is introduced as a set that is not finite. This definition is valid only if the theory developed so far included both finite and infinite sets. But it didn’t! So, what is an infinite set? Is it a finite set that is not finite? There is an endless sequence of finite natural numbers 1, 2, 3 … based on the Peano axiom that if n is a natural number then so is n+1. The real numbers satisfy the Field axioms. Field Axioms 0, 1 are real numbers and the following exist: A unique additive inverse -x for any real number x 0 -1 A unique multiplicative inverse x , for any real number x 0 Real numbers x + y and x * y, for every two real numbers x, y. Along with associative, commutative, and distributive properties. The sets N and R are the infinite sets of natural numbers and of real numbers, respectively. Wade [9] is a standard undergraduate textbook. It starts by implicitly assuming R is a set. “We shall denote the set of real numbers by R.” Rudin [8] is a standard graduate textbook. It also assumes without reservation that R is a set. “A field is a set S with two operations, called addition and multiplication, which satisfy the so-called field axioms.” “There exists an ordered field R … The members of R are called real numbers.” Aristotle’s abstract notion of a potential infinity is “something” without a bound and larger than any known number. The sequence of finite natural numbers 1, 2, 3 … is potentially infinite. A different concept of a completed actual infinity is used with infinite sets. It requires a new abstract notation – the “aleph” numbers to represent the sizes of infinite sets 2 Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Brouwer-Hilbert controversy” Cantor extended the intuitive notion of "the infinite" – one foot placed after the other in a never-ending march toward the horizon – to the notion of "a completed infinite" – the arrival "all the way, way out there" in one fell swoop, and he symbolized this [as] … ℵ0 (aleph-null). Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Actual infinity” In the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance (if the axiom of infinity is included) of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given, actual, completed objects. This is contrasted with potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces a sequence with no last element, and each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps. What exactly is meant by “arrival all the way, way out there"? Why isn’t completion defined precisely as in other areas of mathematics (see Appendix A)? The completion of a metric space is obtained by adding the limits to the Cauchy sequences. The existence of infinite sets is an assumption in mathematics. Axiom of Infinity: There exists an infinite set N = {1, 2, 3 …}. The set N is a closed completed object but the sequence of natural numbers inside it is incomplete or endless. The natural numbers are all finite and yet the set N is actually infinite. The axiom of infinity conflates finite with nonfinite. Both the Peano and the Field axioms dictate that if numbers exist in the sets N and R then additional numbers exist as well. Neither the natural numbers nor the real numbers can be fully determined. There are always more numbers, and more, and yet more … Why must one “accept” N and R as completed objects? 3 A set is defined as a fixed collection of distinct objects. All elements of a set should be listed up front. Any rule or condition or notation involved in the formation of a set must be such that it can be fully exercised prior to the formation of the set, and all elements of the set determined exactly. As an example, the entity [1, 2, 3 … 10] can be fully expanded to yield the entire collection of objects [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] which is a valid set. The Peano axioms and the Field axioms cannot be worked out to “completion”. They result in an unending list of numbers and are not a fixed collection of distinct objects. Just assuming that N is a set and formulating it as the axiom of infinity does not make it true! All kinds of infinite sets, some with rather exotic properties, have been conjured up in mathematics. The Cantor set and the “set of all sets that are not members of themselves” in Russell’s paradox to name a few. Can sets be based on contorted logic that cannot be fully resolved? Cardinality of Infinite Sets An infinite set has nonfinite cardinality. It is no longer the count of the objects in the set. Why is infinite cardinality defined differently? There was a prescription in the concept of actual infinity that the “size” of an infinite set is represented by the aleph number which is different than an ordinary number. The primary reason for the existence of ordinary numbers is to count objects and to measure quantities of physical entities. It is “irrational” that sets such as N and R are made up of ordinary numbers and, yet, their count cannot be a number! A new way has to be developed to compare the sizes of two infinite sets. 4 One-to-One Correspondence The notion of one-to-one correspondence or a bijection is carried over from finite sets to infinite sets. However, the one-to-one pairing is typically demonstrated only for an arbitrary finite element and not for all elements in the two sets, as in finite set theory. Let NE = {2, 4, 6 …} be the set of even natural numbers. It is a proper subset of N. The mapping n N → 2n NE is sufficient to show that these two sets have the same (infinite) cardinality. There is an implicit assumption that the natural numbers in the set N are fully enumerated by choosing an arbitrary finite n from it. Is this really true? The selection of a single finite n, no matter how large this n is, still leaves an unending stream of larger natural numbers (n+1, n+2, n+3 …) unaccounted for. Why doesn’t the Peano axiom (for every n, there is an n+1) figure in some way, shape or form (like an inductive argument) in how a bijection is established? If a method is improperly defined it will lead to inconsistent results and, sure enough, it does yield something that is not permissible in finite set theory. An infinite set can have the same cardinality as its proper subset! This is a contradiction as clear as it can be. And yet it is taken to be true and recharacterized as a counterintuitive result. The same definition of a set applies to both finite and infinite sets. Why do infinite sets have fundamentally different properties? The cardinality of infinite sets cannot be measured. Nevertheless, one can conclude two sets have the same cardinality. 5 The notions of one-to-one correspondence between infinite sets and the “same cardinality” are arbitrary at best and totally flawed at worst. Infinite sets seem to satisfy the “reverse” duck test which says that if it doesn’t look like a duck, doesn’t swim like a duck, and doesn’t quack like a duck, then it probably isn’t a duck. Two-to-One Correspondence In finite set theory, the notion of one-to-one correspondence can be easily generalized to the concept of two-to-one correspondence and even to m-to-n correspondence. Two-to-one correspondence exists between two sets A and B if every two elements in A are exactly paired with one element in B. As an example, if A = {1, 2, 3, 4} and B = {3, 4}, then the elements 1, 2 in A can be paired with the element 3 in B, and the elements 3, 4 in A can be paired with the element 4 in B. It can be easily proven that the set A has twice the cardinality as the set B. The mapping n-1, n N → n NE (n = 2, 4, 6 …) demonstrates two-to-one correspondence between N and NE and the cardinality of N should be twice that of NE.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MATH 162, SHEET 8: the REAL NUMBERS 8A. Construction of The
    MATH 162, SHEET 8: THE REAL NUMBERS This sheet is concerned with proving that the continuum R is an ordered field. Addition and multiplication on R are defined in terms of addition and multiplication on Q, so we will use ⊕ and ⊗ for addition and multiplication of real numbers, to make sure that there is no confusion with + and · on Q: 8A. Construction of the real numbers via cuts, Addition and Order Definition 8.1. A subset A of Q is said to be a cut (or Dedekind cut) if it satisfies the following: (a) A 6= Ø and A 6= Q (b) If r 2 A and s 2 Q satisfies s < r; then s 2 A (c) If r 2 A then there is some s 2 Q with s > r; s 2 A: We denote the collection of all cuts by R. Definition 8.2. We define ⊕ on R as follows. Let A; B 2 R be Dedekind cuts. Define A ⊕ B = fa + b j a 2 A and b 2 Bg 0 = fx 2 Q j x < 0g 1 = fx 2 Q j x < 1g: Exercise 8.3. (a) Prove that A ⊕ B; 0; and 1 are all Dedekind cuts. (b) Prove that fx 2 Q j x ≤ 0g is not a Dedekind cut. (c) Prove that fx 2 Q j x < 0g [ fx 2 Q j x2 < 2g is a Dedekind cut. Hint: In Exercise 4.20 last quarter we showed that if x 2 Q; x ≥ 0; and x2 < 2; then there is some δ 2 Q; δ > 0 such that (x + δ)2 < 2: Exercise 8.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 104: Introduction to Analysis
    Math 104: Introduction to Analysis Contents 1 Lecture 1 3 1.1 The natural numbers . 3 1.2 Equivalence relations . 4 1.3 The integers . 5 1.4 The rational numbers . 6 2 Lecture 2 6 2.1 The real numbers by axioms . 6 2.2 The real numbers by Dedekind cuts . 7 2.3 Properties of R ................................................ 8 3 Lecture 3 9 3.1 Metric spaces . 9 3.2 Topological definitions . 10 3.3 Some topological fundamentals . 10 4 Lecture 4 11 4.1 Sequences and convergence . 11 4.2 Sequences in R ................................................ 12 4.3 Extended real numbers . 12 5 Lecture 5 13 5.1 Compactness . 13 6 Lecture 6 14 6.1 Compactness in Rk .............................................. 14 7 Lecture 7 15 7.1 Subsequences . 15 7.2 Cauchy sequences, complete metric spaces . 16 7.3 Aside: Construction of the real numbers by completion . 17 8 Lecture 8 18 8.1 Taking powers in the real numbers . 18 8.2 \Toolbox" sequences . 18 9 Lecture 9 19 9.1 Series . 19 9.2 Adding, regrouping series . 20 9.3 \Toolbox" series . 21 1 10 Lecture 10 22 10.1 Root and ratio tests . 22 10.2 Summation by parts, alternating series . 23 10.3 Absolute convergence, multiplying and rearranging series . 24 11 Lecture 11 26 11.1 Limits of functions . 26 11.2 Continuity . 26 12 Lecture 12 27 12.1 Properties of continuity . 27 13 Lecture 13 28 13.1 Uniform continuity . 28 13.2 The derivative . 29 14 Lecture 14 31 14.1 Mean value theorem . 31 15 Lecture 15 32 15.1 L'Hospital's Rule .
    [Show full text]
  • HONOURS B.Sc., M.A. and M.MATH. EXAMINATION MATHEMATICS and STATISTICS Paper MT3600 Fundamentals of Pure Mathematics September 2007 Time Allowed : Two Hours
    HONOURS B.Sc., M.A. AND M.MATH. EXAMINATION MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS Paper MT3600 Fundamentals of Pure Mathematics September 2007 Time allowed : Two hours Attempt all FOUR questions [See over 2 1. Let X be a set, and let ≤ be a total order on X. We say that X is dense if for any two x; y 2 X with x < y there exists z 2 X such that x < z < y. In what follows ≤ always denotes the usual ordering on rational numbers. (i) For each of the following sets determine whether it is dense or not: (a) Q+ (positive rationals); (b) N (positive integers); (c) fx 2 Q : 3 ≤ x ≤ 4g; (d) fx 2 Q : 1 ≤ x ≤ 2g [ fx 2 Q : 3 ≤ x ≤ 4g. Justify your assertions. [4] (ii) Let a and b be rational numbers satisfying a < b. To which of the following a + 4b three sets does the number belong: A = fx 2 : x < ag, B = fx 2 : 5 Q Q a < x < bg or C = fx 2 Q : b < xg? Justify your answer. [1] (iii) Consider the set a A = f : a; n 2 ; n ≥ 0g: 5n Z Is A dense? Justify your answer. [2] 1 (iv) Prove that r = 1 is the only positive rational number such that r + is an r integer. [2] 1 (v) How many positive real numbers x are there such that x + is an integer? x Your answer should be one of: 0, 1, 2, 3, . , countably infinite, or uncountably infinite, and you should justify it. [3] 2. (i) Define what it means for a set A ⊆ Q to be a Dedekind cut.
    [Show full text]
  • 11 Construction of R
    Math 361 Construction of R 11 Construction of R Theorem 11.1. There does not exist q Q such that q2 = 2. 2 Proof. Suppose that q Q satis¯es q2 = 2. Then we can suppose that q > 0 and express 2 q = a=b, where a; b ! are relatively prime. Since 2 a2 = 2 b2 we have that a2 = 2b2: It follows that 2 a; say a = 2c. Hence j 4c2 = 2b2 2c2 = 2b2 This means that 2 b, which contradicts the assumption that a and b are relatively prime. j Theorem 11.2. There exists r R such that r2 = 2. 2 Proof. Consider the continuous function f : [1; 2] R, de¯ned by f(x) = x2. Then f(1) = 1 and f(2) = 4. By the Intermediate Value !Theorem, there exists r [1; 2] such that r2 = 2. 2 Why is the Intermediate Value Theorem true? Intuitively because R \has no holes"... More precisely... De¯nition 11.3. Suppose that A R. r R is an upper bound of A i® a r for all a A. ² 2 · 2 A is bounded above i® there exists an upper bound for A. ² r R is a least upper bound of A i® the following conditions hold: ² 2 { r is an upper bound of A. { If s is an upper bound of A, then r s. · Axiom 11.4 (Completeness). If A R is nonempty and bounded above, then there exists a least upper bound of A. Deepish Fact Completeness Axiom Intermediate Value Theorem. ) 2006/10/25 1 Math 361 Construction of R Remark 11.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Eudoxos and Dedekind: on the Ancient Greek Theory of Ratios and Its Relation to Modern Mathematics*
    HOWARD STEIN EUDOXOS AND DEDEKIND: ON THE ANCIENT GREEK THEORY OF RATIOS AND ITS RELATION TO MODERN MATHEMATICS* 1. THE PHILOSOPHICAL GRAMMAR OF THE CATEGORY OF QUANTITY According to Aristotle, the objects studied by mathematics have no independent existence, but are separated in thought from the substrate in which they exist, and treated as separable - i.e., are "abstracted" by the mathematician. I In particular, numerical attributives or predicates (which answer the question 'how many?') have for "substrate" multi- tudes with a designated unit. 'How many pairs of socks?' has a different answer from 'how many socks?'. (Cf. Metaph. XIV i 1088a5ff.: "One la signifies that it is a measure of a multitude, and number lb that it is a measured multitude and a multitude of measures".) It is reasonable to see in this notion of a "measured multitude" or a "multitude of mea- sures" just that of a (finite) set: the measures or units are what we should call the elements of the set; the requirement that such units be distinguished is precisely what differentiates a set from a mere accumulation or mass. There is perhaps some ambiguity in the quoted passage: the statement, "Number signifies that it is a measured multi- tude", might be taken either to identify numbers with finite sets, or to imply that the subjects numbers are predicated of are finite sets. Euclid's definition - "a number is a multitude composed of units" - points to the former reading (which implies, for example, that there are many two's - a particular knife and fork being one of them).
    [Show full text]
  • WHY a DEDEKIND CUT DOES NOT PRODUCE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS And, Open Intervals Are Not Sets
    WHY A DEDEKIND CUT DOES NOT PRODUCE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS And, Open Intervals are not Sets Pravin K. Johri The theory of mathematics claims that the set of real numbers is uncountable while the set of rational numbers is countable. Almost all real numbers are supposed to be irrational but there are few examples of irrational numbers relative to the rational numbers. The reality does not match the theory. Real numbers satisfy the field axioms but the simple arithmetic in these axioms can only result in rational numbers. The Dedekind cut is one of the ways mathematics rationalizes the existence of irrational numbers. Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Dedekind cut” A Dedekind cut is а method of construction of the real numbers. It is a partition of the rational numbers into two non-empty sets A and B, such that all elements of A are less than all elements of B, and A contains no greatest element. If B has a smallest element among the rationals, the cut corresponds to that rational. Otherwise, that cut defines a unique irrational number which, loosely speaking, fills the "gap" between A and B. The countable partitions of the rational numbers cannot result in uncountable irrational numbers. Moreover, a known irrational number, or any real number for that matter, defines a Dedekind cut but it is not possible to go in the other direction and create a Dedekind cut which then produces an unknown irrational number. 1 Irrational Numbers There is an endless sequence of finite natural numbers 1, 2, 3 … based on the Peano axiom that if n is a natural number then so is n+1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Mathematics (MATH 1510)
    Fundamentals of Mathematics (MATH 1510) Instructor: Lili Shen Email: [email protected] Department of Mathematics and Statistics York University September 11, 2015 About the course Name: Fundamentals of Mathematics, MATH 1510, Section A. Time and location: Monday 12:30-13:30 CB 121, Wednesday and Friday 12:30-13:30 LSB 106. Please check Moodle regularly for course information, announcements and lecture notes: http://moodle.yorku.ca/moodle/course/view. php?id=55333 Be sure to read Outline of the Course carefully. Textbook James Stewart, Lothar Redlin, Saleem Watson. Precalculus: Mathematics for Calculus, 7th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2015. Towards real numbers In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects. We write a 2 A to denote that a is an element of a set A. An empty set is a set with no objects, denoted by ?. Starting from the empty set ?, we will construct the set N of natural numbers: 0; 1; 2; 3; 4;::: , the set Z of integers: :::; −4; −3; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2; 3; 4;::: , the set Q rational numbers: all numbers that can be m expressed as the quotient of integers m; n, where n 6= 0, n and finally, the set R of real numbers. Natural numbers Natural numbers are defined recursively as: Definition (Natural numbers) 0 = ?, n + 1 = n [ fng. Natural numbers In details, natural numbers are constructed as follows: 0 = ?, 1 = 0 [ f0g = f0g = f?g, 2 = 1 [ f1g = f0; 1g = f?; f?gg, 3 = 2 [ f2g = f0; 1; 2g = f?; f?g; f?; f?ggg, :::::: n + 1 = n [ fng = f0; 1; 2;:::; ng, :::::: Integers and rational numbers Four basic operations in arithmetic: + − × ÷ Natural numbers Subtraction − Integers Division ÷ Rational numbers Integers and rational numbers Theorem Integers are closed with respect to addition, subtraction and multiplication.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagonalization and Logical Paradoxes
    DIAGONALIZATION AND LOGICAL PARADOXES DIAGONALIZATION AND LOGICAL PARADOXES By HAIXIA ZHONG, B.B.A., M.A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright by Haixia Zhong, August 2013 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2013) (Philosophy) McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Diagonalization and Logical Paradoxes AUTHOR: Haixia Zhong, B.B.A. (Nanjing University), M.A. (Peking University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Richard T. W. Arthur NUMBER OF PAGES: vi, 229 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a proper treatment for two groups of logical paradoxes: semantic paradoxes and set-theoretic paradoxes. My main thesis is that the two different groups of paradoxes need different kinds of solution. Based on the analysis of the diagonal method and truth-gap theory, I propose a functional-deflationary interpretation for semantic notions such as ‘heterological’, ‘true’, ‘denote’, and ‘define’, and argue that the contradictions in semantic paradoxes are due to a misunderstanding of the non-representational nature of these semantic notions. Thus, they all can be solved by clarifying the relevant confusion: the liar sentence and the heterological sentence do not have truth values, and phrases generating paradoxes of definability (such as that in Berry’s paradox) do not denote an object. I also argue against three other leading approaches to the semantic paradoxes: the Tarskian hierarchy, contextualism, and the paraconsistent approach. I show that they fail to meet one or more criteria for a satisfactory solution to the semantic paradoxes. For the set-theoretic paradoxes, I argue that the criterion for a successful solution in the realm of set theory is mathematical usefulness.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes About Dedekind Cuts
    Notes about Dedekind cuts Andr´eBelotto January 16, 2020 1 Introduction In these notes, we assume that the field of rational numbers Q has already been constructed, that the (usual) operations of addition + : Q2 → Q and multiplication × : Q2 → Q are defined, as well as the usual ’less-than-or-equal’ relation ≤. Note that this assumption does not belong to a set theory course: in such a course, we would start by defining the Zermelo-Fraenkel (set-theoretical) axioms, which allow the (set-theoretical) construction of the natural numbers N. The construction of Z and Q would then follow from algebraic arguments. Our objective is to construct the real numbers R and to properly define their sum and product operations. In other words, we want to answer questions such as: • What does π mean? (in terms of the rational numbers Q) As we will see, answering this kind of question will demonstrate one of the most important differences between R and Q: the “lack of topological holes” (that is, its completeness). This property is (at least, implicitly) used in most fundamental results in a real analysis course (e.g. the Intermediate Value The- orem, the Bolzano-Weiersstrass Theorem, the connectedness of R, etc.). There are (at least) three classical ways to construct R from Q: 1. Dedekind cuts; 2. Infinite decimal expansions; 3. Cauchy sequences. Here, we have chosen the first approach. We note that (3) is usually chosen in an advanced course, but this is not suitable here: we want to motivate the notion of Cauchy sequences by construction of R, and not the other way around.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 104, Summer 2019 PSET #2 (Due Tuesday 7/2/2019)
    Math 104, PSET #2 Daniel Suryakusuma, 24756460 Math 104, Summer 2019 PSET #2 (due Tuesday 7/2/2019) Problem 6.2. Show that if α and β are Dedekind cuts, then so is α + β = fr1 + r2 : r1 2 α and r2 2 βg. Solution. This result is explicitly given in the main text of Ross section 6 as the definition of addition in R. However, we'll back-track and verify this result. Suppose α; β are Dedekind cuts. Then we can explicitly write α = fr1 2 Q j r1 < s1g and β = fr2 2 Q j r2 < s2g. To show (α + β) :=fr1 + r2 j r1 2 α; r2 2 βg is a Dedekind cut, we simply refer to the definition of (requirements for) a Dedekind cut. (i) To see (α + β) 6= Q, simply consider elements ξ1; ξ2 2 Q but with ξ1 2= α and ξ2 2= β . By our definitions, (ξ1 + ξ2) 2= (α + β), but (ξ1 + ξ2) 2 Q, hence (α + β) 6= Q. To see (α + β) 6= fg, consider that α; β are nonempty hence r1; r2 exist, and thus r1 + r2 2 (α + β) exists. To see this inclusion explicitly, see (ii). (ii) Let r1 2 α; r2 2 β. Then we have for all s1; s2 2 Q, that (s1 < r1) =) s1 2 α and s2 < r2 =) s2 2 β. Adding these inequalities, we have [(s1 + s2) < (r1 + r2)] =) (s1 + s2) 2 (α + β) per our definition of (α + β). Because s1 2 Q; s2 2 Q =) (s1 + s2) 2 Q, we satisfy requirement (ii).
    [Show full text]
  • Math 140A - Sketch Notes
    Math 140A - Sketch Notes Neil Donaldson Fall 2019 1 Introduction The primary purpose of 140A/B is to organize the logical background of calculus. Calculus is excep- tionally useful, yet at its heart lies an ancient philosophical debate dating at least to Zeno’s paradoxes of the 5thC BC: how do we calculate with infinitesimally small quantities, and is it even legitimate to do so? Definite integration, for instance, requires the summation of the areas of vanishingly small rectangles. Is it legitimate to use such a method to ‘compute’ the area under a curve? Long after its pioneers1 had applied calculus to many important problems in the sciences, philosophers were ar- guing over its validity, and mathematicians were struggling to put calculus on a firm logical footing. Modern descriptions of calculus rely heavily on the notion of limit, though it took mathematicians over a century to realize the importance of this concept and how to formulate it clearly. The ‘modern’ e-d definition that we shall explore was developed in the early 1800’s, courtesy of Bolzano, Cauchy and Weierstrass (amongst others), all of whom feature prominently in 140A/B. The climax of 140B is a thorough description of the Riemann integral, which did not appear until the mid 1800’s. Elemen- tary Analysis is therefore a history of one of the great mathematical triumphs of the 16–1800’s. Most of the work on calculus will have to wait until 140B. In this course we primarily consider limits and continuity. We start, however, with something even more basic: the structure of the real numbers, without which the smooth, continuous changes of calculus cannot be described.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture10.Pdf
    Bootcamp Christoph Thiele Summer 2012 Metric spaces Definition 1 A metric space is a pair (M; d) consisting of a set M with a function + d : M × M ! R0 with the following properties that hold for all x; y; z 2 M 1. Zero diestance for identical element: d(x; x) = 0. 2. Non-zero distance for non-identical elements: If x 6= y, then d(x; y) > 0 3. Symmetry: d(x; y) = d(y; x) 4. Triangle inequality: d(x; z) ≤ d(x; y) + d(y; z) We list some examples: q 1. D with distance d(x; y) = jx − yj = (x − y)2 q 2. R with distance d(x; y) = jx − yj = (x − y)2 n 3. R , i.e. the set of tuples x = (x1; : : : ; xn) with xi 2 R with distance d(x; y) = q Pn 2 i=1(xi − yi) n 4. R with distance d(x; y) = sup1≤i≤n jxi − yij q 2 P1 2 5. l (N), the set of sequecnes x : N ! R with distance d(x; y) = i=1(xi − yi) 1 6. l (N), the set of bounded sequences, with distance d(x; y) = supi2N jxi − yij 1 P1 7. l (N), the set of absolutely summable sequences, with d(x; y) = i=1 jxi − yij 8. The set BV (D) of functions of bounded variation on D, i.e. the set of pairs (f; g) with f; g right continuous (say) monotone increasing bounded functions modulo the equivalence relation (f; g) ∼ (f 0; g0) if f + g0 = f 0 + g with distance d((f; g); (h; k)) = inf[j sup(f 0+k0)(x))−(f 0+k0)(0)j+j sup(g0+h0)(x)−(g0+h0)(0)j] x x where the infimum is taken over all representatives of ther respective the equiv- alence classes.
    [Show full text]