Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2011

    I wrote analytic function, mostly just a definition. I found a reference that treated the infinite-dimensional case in pretty fair generality (slightly more than I actually did) without making the definition any more complicated (well, except one place where one must insert the word ‘continuous’), so I did that.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2013

    What is a homogeneous operator? Apparently you do mean a k(xc)\sum a_k (x-c) rather than a k(xc) k \sum a_k (x-c)^k, as I would suppose. Merry Christmas!

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2013

    Right, it's a ka_k applied to xcx - c, rather than a ka_k multiplied by (xc) k(x-c)^k.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 24th 2013
    • (edited Dec 24th 2013)

    Why did you remove the claim that (for functions on a subset of the complex plane) analytic functions are differentiable?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013
    I write X is Y to mean X if and only if Y. Generally, I write X is Y asymmetrically to indicate the hard direction is X implies Y. The "is" matches our use of the word in the English language.

    Another example of such usage is "an bounded entire function is constant."

    Do revert if you would.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013
    I take back that portion of my comment about English language usage.

    I dislike the predicate "if and only if". When formulating a theorem, I wish that the resulting verbal articulation be easily remembered. Do you have a means to preserve the symmetric technical meaning yet have a graceful articulation?
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013
    I reverted the theorem back to the original phrasing until a better alternative can be found.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013

    Colin, in the case of definitions, an ’if’ as in the sentence “a topological space is Hausdorff if any two distinct points have disjoint neighborhoods” invariably translates to ’if and only if’. Otherwise, for the sake of clarity, one should use the full phrase ’if and only if’ (if and only if it applies, of course). There are substitutes such as ’exactly when’ which might sound more graceful to some ears.

    Perhaps you mean to take back the assertion that “X is Y” means (or should mean) “X if and only if Y”. This is patently false. For example, we say “a compact Hausdorff space is normal”.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013
    Todd, I realize that the suggestion you gave is what we commonly write for definitions. In the case of this entry, following this syntax gives "each function in one complex variable is analytic if differentiable." Would we want to write that?

    Yes, the part on usage of "is" is what I wish to take back.
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2013

    If we were speaking exclusively about functions of a single complex variable, f:Uf: U \to \mathbb{C} where UU \subseteq \mathbb{C} is an open domain, then yes, it would be perfectly legitimate to write “we say ff is analytic if it is complex differentiable” and use that as a definition. In fact, this is the definition given in many accounts, e.g., the text by Ahlfors.

    For a definition, I would not write (and I’ve never seen anyone write) “each function in one complex variable is analytic if differentiable” because that ’each’ would be confusing, making it would look much more like an assertion or proposition than a definition.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2013

    @ Todd: There is no definition in the material whose phrasing Colin and I were discussing; the definition of ‘analytic’ is given earlier in a more general context, the definition of ‘differentiable’ is given on its own page, and their equivalence (in a certain context) is being given as a theorem.

    @ Colin: As a matter of mathematical English grammar, the phrase ‘A [adjective-1] [noun] is [adjective-2].’ doesn't imply that every [adjective-2] [noun] is [adjective-1]. Some phrasing other than ‘if and only if’ might be possible, but not that one.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2013

    @Toby: that’s neither here nor there, because I wasn’t discussing the article; I was discussing English language usage (e.g., meaning of ’is’ and of ’if and only if’). I mentioned definitions as an instance where one could get away with saying ’if’ in place of ’if and only if’.