MHB Simple Issue of oh symbol - exact sequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences Symbol
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a potential typographical error in Adhikari and Adhikari's book regarding the use of the symbol "O" in Section 9.7 on exact sequences. Participants suggest that the "O" should actually represent the zero element, as indicated in the context of Theorem 9.7.1 and Example 9.7(d). There is a consensus that the notation could lead to confusion, particularly in the statement about the kernel of a function. Clarifications highlight that the authors may be using "O" to denote a specific module, but it should consistently refer to zero. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate notation in mathematical texts for clear understanding.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Adhikari and Adhikari's (A&A) book, "Basic Modern Algebra with Applications".

I am currently focussed on Section 9.7 Exact Sequences. On page 387, A&A give Theorem 9.7.1.

A&A use symbol in the exact sequences that looks like an oh but I think it should be a zero. They continue this 'mistake' or printing error until the end of the page with Example 9.7(d) where the book reverts to a zero symbol in the exact sequence.

I believe the oh symbol is a typo - I think it should be a zero - can someone please confirm that I am correct ...

Page 387 of A&A follows:View attachment 3627

I would very much appreciate someone confirming that the oh symbol (O) in the above text should be a zero (0) ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that the authors are using $O$ to denote the $R$-module that consists of a single element $0$ (or you could call the element $0_O$, to denote that it is the zero element of the module $O$). But in the first line of the proof of Theorem 9.7.1, "$\ker f = \{O_M\}$" should surely be "$\ker f = \{0_M\}$": the kernel of $f$ is the submodule of $M$ consisting of the zero element of $M$.
 
Opalg said:
I think that the authors are using $O$ to denote the $R$-module that consists of a single element $0$ (or you could call the element $0_O$, to denote that it is the zero element of the module $O$). But in the first line of the proof of Theorem 9.7.1, "$\ker f = \{O_M\}$" should surely be "$\ker f = \{0_M\}$": the kernel of $f$ is the submodule of $M$ consisting of the zero element of $M$.
Thanks so much Opalg ... appreciate the clarification ... most helpful ...

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K