Doing a problem on rings from Dummit & Foote I think I'm mis-reading it

  • Thread starter Thread starter farleyknight
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying subrings of the ring of all functions from the closed interval [0,1] to the reals. Participants are examining specific sets of functions and their properties in relation to being subrings.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to analyze various sets of functions to determine if they qualify as subrings, expressing uncertainty about the definitions and domains involved. Some participants question the validity of the limit in part (e) based on the function's domain, while others discuss potential discrepancies in the text of the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the assumptions and definitions provided in the problem statement. There is a recognition of differing interpretations based on the editions of the text being referenced, but no consensus has been reached regarding the correctness of the interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of potential typos in different editions of the textbook, which may affect the understanding of the problem. Participants note that the limit in part (e) appears to be a point of confusion, with some editions indicating a different sign than others.

farleyknight
Messages
143
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Decide which of the following are subrings of the ring of all functions from the closed interval [0,1] to R (the reals)

a) The set of all functions f(x) such that f(q) = 0 for all q in Q (the rationals) & q in [0, 1]
b) The set of all polynomial functions
c) The set of all functions which have only a finite number of zeros, together with the zero function
d) The set of all functions which have an infinite number of zeros.
e) The set of all functions f such that lim {x -> 1+} f(x) = 0
f) The set of all rational linear combinations of the functions sin(nx) and cos(mx) where m and n are non-negative integers

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



The first one is pretty straight forward to show that it is a subring. But unless I'm mistaken, the sets mentioned from b to f aren't even subsets let alone subgroups or subrings since they can be defined on a larger domain than [0,1]. Am I correct? Or am I reading it wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
farleyknight said:
The first one is pretty straight forward to show that it is a subring. But unless I'm mistaken, the sets mentioned from b to f aren't even subsets let alone subgroups or subrings since they can be defined on a larger domain than [0,1]. Am I correct? Or am I reading it wrong?

I'm sure they mean that you should assume in all six parts that the functions are from [0,1] to [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex], except that doesn't make sense for part (e). Does it really say

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1^+}f(x)[/tex]?

Because that limit doesn't make sense if the function's domain is [0,1].

[Edit]: I just checked using the "look inside" feature on Amazon; in that edition (3rd) it reads

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1^-}f(x)[/tex]

which makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
jbunniii said:
I'm sure they mean that you should assume in all six parts that the functions are from [0,1] to [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex], except that doesn't make sense for part (e). Does it really say

[tex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 1+}f(x)[/tex]?

Because that limit doesn't make sense if the function's domain is [0,1].

I'll take your word for it since that's the only conclusion I could come to myself.

But as for part (e), that is correct. You can search for the question inside the only online version I could find (page 231 in that edition):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471433349/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
farleyknight said:
I'll take your word for it since that's the only conclusion I could come to myself.

But as for part (e), that is correct. You can search for the question inside the only online version I could find (page 231 in that edition):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471433349/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Ha, you read my mind (see my edit above)! But I'm looking at 6(e) on page 231 in the Amazon viewer right now, even zooming into make sure. That's a minus sign, not a plus sign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jbunniii said:
Ha, you read my mind (see my edit above)! But I'm looking at 6(e) on page 231 in the Amazon viewer right now, even zooming into make sure. That's a minus sign, not a plus sign.

Ah crap, you're right. I read it wrong. Well, in my edition it is + not -.. I should probably get a newer edition :(
 
farleyknight said:
Ah crap, you're right. I read it wrong. Well, in my edition it is + not -.. I should probably get a newer edition :(

Yeah, I have an older edition too, I think the 2nd (I don't have it here with me). It has its share of typos but I doubt it's worth spending the money to upgrade unless you really want the new material from the 3rd. There is an errata list available here, in case you don't already have it:

www.emba.uvm.edu/~foote/errata3w.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K