pennatil / analysis-notes Goto Github PK

We have a bit of an issue here, is the correct class C' or C^1?
We use C' relatively consistently within the doc, but at some places it's even \subset '...
example include
Chap8...

Beweis of 6.6:

I may be missing something, but considering f to be a constant function, then P1 and P2 could be equal sets and still satisfy condition (i) and (ii).

But then, the union "Q" wouldn't be a strict subset and also the "less than"-sign in condition (iii) should be changed to a "less/equal than"-sign...
Better think those through yourself before correcting anything.. (was a long day and I might start to invent new mistakes just to have something to complain about...)

Ah, and if you write the definition of the union-set "Q" in brackets, right behind cond (iii) it would make things a little bit more clear.

On the proof (b)-->(a) in the first statement, the integral symbols for "Unteres Riemann-Integral" and "Oberes Riemann-Integral" are the wrong way. (The little lines above b and below a").

Satz 6.6 a) (or "1."):

In my notes I changed "f(x) ist integrierbar über [a,b]" to "f(x) ist Riemann-integrierbar über [a,b]" since we're not really talking about "regular Integrierbarkeit" to that point.
(I hope not to be too pedantic about this, but since the theorem is called "Riemannsches Kriterium für integrierbarkeit" this might cause some confusion...)

I guess the "CAN'T READ"-part is: "forall x ∈ R" (pretty shure actually, after looking at the lecture-notes)

"Folgerung 2.3" is labeled "i-ix" whereas "Beweis 2.3" is "a-f"

(don't know if on purpose, but a little confusing when scrolling through...)

Definition (Struwe 4.1.3 (ii)):
"x0 ∈R\Q" it should be "x0 ∈ R\Omega"

Finish typing up chapter 4

At the moment, it's really hard to reference a specific part of the document, like wanting to reference Korollar 2.11 from Example 3.14, because most of the section numbers are hardcoded for compatability with the handwritten notes. This means that \label and subsequent \refs will display a most likely wrong section number.
This could be improved by attempting to work with the counters, but I think this will be quite difficult.
Does anybody have an idea how to improve this?

I noticed that in chapter 3 arrays are used instead of \choose for the binomail coefficients.
I think \choose looks much nicer, and I'd totally fix this, but I don't have access to my laptop for another 3 days or so (and fixing this on the iPad is just a pain).. If anyone wants to fix it now, go ahead:)
Otherwise this'll just serve as a reminder for me

In Chapter_4.tex on line 201 it says

von $\Omega\subseteq\R^{d}$ nach $\R{n}$

while it should be (missing ^ for R^n)

von $\Omega\subseteq\R^{d}$ nach $\R^{n}$

The point of the picture on p. 136 in the complete file would sort of be to show that A+B = C + D

But in your's it doesn't reeeallly look that way 😁

And I can't handle the tikz magic, I'm afraid.

Instead of t /= l it should be i /= l

Finish typing up chapter 5

Instead of f(x)=3x²+6 it should be f(x)=3x²+4

DO NOT CLOSE THIS ISSUE!

"Satz 6.6" it says "1." and "2." instead of "a)" and "b)"

There are in total four occurrences of

\infty\rbrack

which means ∞ is included in the interval which is by definition not possible (at least what I've been taught) and the usual notation in the scripts is ∞). Since I don't know how I'd have to change this to be compliant with the styling/TeX itself, I ask someone else to please do this change. Thanks!

"what goes there?"

I think:
"Die folgenden Funktionen sind auf ihrem Definitionsbereich stetig:"

or

"Die folgenden Funktionen sind stetig:"

will do it.

I think Prof. Immamoglu is confusing those two words more often than not.
So, if you stumble about einige, just think einzelne, and if it makes more sense replace it.

Wit -> wir

"Aus wiederholter Anwendung von 1. und 2. ergibt sich die polynomielle
Funktion:" (Annotation: "Heisst die wirklich so?)

"Aus wiederholter Anwendung von 1. und 2. ergibt sich die Polynomfunktion:"

Sorry, somehow my Git-fu doesn't work today. It'd be nice if someone else could please do the following changes for me:

Everything is in Chapter_9.tex

• Line 831: "es kommt ja nur ein Verschiebung" should read "nur eine Verschiebung"
• Line 940: there is one "\phi" instead of "\Phi" (just to be consistent); "det d\phi" should read "det d\Phi"

Thanks!

Chapter_4.tex Line 376 reads

\[ \forall\varepsilon>0\;\exists\delta>0: \forall x\in\Omega,\norm{x-x_{0}}<\delta \implies \norm{\delta(x)-\delta(x_{0})}<\varepsilon\]

while it should be (yes, Prof's handwriting might be confusing)

\[ \forall\varepsilon>0\;\exists\delta>0: \forall x\in\Omega,\norm{x-x_{0}}<\delta \implies \norm{\f(x)-\f(x_{0})}<\varepsilon\]

Explanation: delta is a number, f is a function. If you check Wikipedia and Mathworld by Wolfram you get a slightly different definition, but they all boil down to f(x)-f(x_0). And on the review on page 16 it's also like this (in a more legible form).

I hope I'm not wrong ;)

The derivative of arctan x is 1/(1+x^2), not 1/sqrt(1+x^2)

This one slipped my attention while proofing: Chapter 7's title should read "Gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen" and not "Gewöhnliche Differenzialgleichungen" (note the z). I guess this also requires a build.sh update/PDF rebuild, that's why (my excuse this time :P) I refrain from doing it myself.

I just pushed a branch BetterGeometry (30be022) with (imho) better geometry, using the geometry package. It looks better and is more readable, but some of the todo comments become cut off at the sides. I leave the decision to @pennatil whether this will be merged now, merged when we don't need the todos anymore or not merged at all.

In der Skizze ergibt sch als Volumen

In der Skizze ergibt sich als Volumen

I don't know about you, but I think the title of the first chapter should be "Logik und Grundlagen" instead of "Logik und Unterlagen". I'm sure this was a poor choice of words and "Grundlagen" just makes more sense (to me).

I just noticed the sections on Taylor series and local minima/maxima are missing in chapter 5 -- and the corresponding PDFs aren't in the repo either. Week 13, Week 14

Finish typing up chapter 3

@bimmlerd I used to be able to run BuildAll.sh on Windows without any errors (surprisingly). When running it in cmd, it looks like it uses my git installation to do so (otherwise stuff like cd wouldn't work).
Yet after you introduced 00baed7 the script doesn't run anymore and doesn't output an error messages either.
Yes, I know Windows isn't supported officially (and I don't blame you for it at all) and I understand the need for safe scripts. But still, it would be nice, wouldn't it? After all it used to work... ;)

Output before 00baed7

F:\Users\Linus\Documents\Web\Projects\_GitHub\Analysis-Notes\Scripts>BuildAll.sh
Welcome to Git (version 1.8.5.2-preview20131230)


Run 'git help git' to display the help index.
Run 'git help <command>' to display help for specific commands.
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.5-1.40.14 (TeX Live 2013/W32TeX)
 \write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./main.tex
LaTeX2e <2011/06/27>
Babel <3.9k> and hyphenation patterns for 78 languages loaded.

[.............]

Output written on main.pdf (251 pages, 1086839 bytes).
SyncTeX written on main.synctex.
Transcript written on main.log.
F:\Users\Linus\Documents\Web\Projects\_GitHub\Analysis-Notes\Scripts\BuildAll.sh: line 18: growlnotify: command not found


#### FINISHED GENERATING MAIN, CAN BE FOUND IN THE PDF FOLDER ####

Output after 00baed7

F:\Users\Linus\Documents\Web\Projects\_GitHub\Analysis-Notes\Scripts>BuildAll.sh
Welcome to Git (version 1.8.5.2-preview20131230)


Run 'git help git' to display the help index.
Run 'git help <command>' to display help for specific commands.

Not really a huge issue, but I might fix that at some point.

In the filename of the generated pdf of chapter 2, there's a typo. Could you please change "reele Zahlen" to "reelle Zahlen"?

I noticed one little issue while proofing the chapters: Prof. Imamoglu uses the American version to write a "1" which looks like a "|". So if she writes R^' (R as in \R), she actually means R^1; the same also applies for the functions of class C^1 (once-differentiable), it's not C^' but C^1. I noticed this mistake several times but unfortunately my TeX isn't very good... If you find the time, could you either put a notice at the beginning or fix it? Thanks!

I just added (f12a1c5) the review notes from Analysis II. It is still a first draft, but at least the material is up. If you have time @bimmlerd and @limenet please take a look at it. No stress whatsoever!

When proofing chapter 4 I noticed several Beweise weren't wrapped as usual (and thus they look a bit different). Not really an issue, just FYI.