MHB Another Question On B&S, Theorem 7.3.5 - Fundamental Theorem Of Calculus ...

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Real Analysis" (Fourth Edition) by Robert G Bartle and Donald R Sherbert ...

I am focused on Chapter 7: The Riemann Integral ...

I need help in fully understanding yet another aspect of the proof of Theorem 7.3.5 ...Theorem 7.3.5 and its proof ... ... read as follows:View attachment 7327
In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... But, since $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ is arbitrary, we conclude that the right hand limit is given by

$$\text{lim}_{ x \rightarrow 0+ } \frac{ F( c + h ) - F(c) }{h} = f(c) $$

... ... "Should this read $$\text{lim}_{ h \rightarrow 0+ } \frac{ F( c + h ) - F(c) }{h} = f(c)$$ ... ...?

BUT ... if the expression is correct, can someone please explain how to interpret it ... ?
Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above proof from Bartle and Sherbert we read the following:

" ... ... But, since $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ is arbitrary, we conclude that the right hand limit is given by

$$\text{lim}_{ x \rightarrow 0+ } \frac{ F( c + h ) - F(c) }{h} = f(c) $$

... ... "Should this read $$\text{lim}_{ h \rightarrow 0+ } \frac{ F( c + h ) - F(c) }{h} = f(c)$$ ... ...?
Yet another typo! Yes, it should obviously be $\lim_{h\to0+}$.

Robert Bartle was a well-known mathematician, who specialised in writing introductory real analysis textbooks. The first edition of Introduction to Real Analysis, which he co-authored with Donald Sherbert, appeared in 1983, and this book has been popular ever since. But Bartle died in 2003, and it seems that later editions (published by Wiley) have not been prepared as carefully as the original.
 
Opalg said:
Yet another typo! Yes, it should obviously be $\lim_{h\to0+}$.

Robert Bartle was a well-known mathematician, who specialised in writing introductory real analysis textbooks. The first edition of Introduction to Real Analysis, which he co-authored with Donald Sherbert, appeared in 1983, and this book has been popular ever since. But Bartle died in 2003, and it seems that later editions (published by Wiley) have not been prepared as carefully as the original.
Thanks Opalg ...

Peter
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.
Back
Top