Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,920
- 48
I am reading John B. Conway's book, "Functions of a Complex Variable I" (Second Edition) ...
I am currently focussed on Chapter IV: Complex Integration ... Section 1: Riemann-Stieljes Integral ... ...
I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.4 ... ...
Theorem 1.4 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7443
View attachment 7444In the above text from Conway we read the following:
" ... ... Let us show that this will complete the proof. If $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ let $$m \gt ( 2/ \epsilon ) V( \gamma ) \ge \text{ diam } F_m$$. Since $$I \in F_m$$ , $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$. Thus if $$\delta = \delta_m$$ the theorem is proved. ... ... "I confess I am a little lost here ...I can see that if $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ then $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$ ... but how exactly does this fact together with $$\delta = \delta_m$$ assure us that the theorem is proved ...
... ... that is ... how does $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$
$$\Longrightarrow$$ there exists a complex number $$I$$ such that for every $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ there exists a $$\delta \gt 0$$ sch that for $$\lvert \lvert P \rvert \rvert \lt \delta$$ ... then ...
$$\left\lvert I - \sum_{ i = 1}^m f( \tau_k ) [ \gamma (t_k) -\gamma ( t_{ k-1 } ) ] \right\rvert $$
Help will be much appreciated ...
Peter==================================================================================
In the above proof, Conway mentions Cantor's Theorem ... so I am providing MHB readers with Conway's statement of Cantor's Theorem together with the relevant definition of the diameter of a set ... as follows:
View attachment 7445
I am currently focussed on Chapter IV: Complex Integration ... Section 1: Riemann-Stieljes Integral ... ...
I need help in fully understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.4 ... ...
Theorem 1.4 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 7443
View attachment 7444In the above text from Conway we read the following:
" ... ... Let us show that this will complete the proof. If $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ let $$m \gt ( 2/ \epsilon ) V( \gamma ) \ge \text{ diam } F_m$$. Since $$I \in F_m$$ , $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$. Thus if $$\delta = \delta_m$$ the theorem is proved. ... ... "I confess I am a little lost here ...I can see that if $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ then $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$ ... but how exactly does this fact together with $$\delta = \delta_m$$ assure us that the theorem is proved ...
... ... that is ... how does $$F_m \subset B( I ; \epsilon )$$
$$\Longrightarrow$$ there exists a complex number $$I$$ such that for every $$\epsilon \gt 0$$ there exists a $$\delta \gt 0$$ sch that for $$\lvert \lvert P \rvert \rvert \lt \delta$$ ... then ...
$$\left\lvert I - \sum_{ i = 1}^m f( \tau_k ) [ \gamma (t_k) -\gamma ( t_{ k-1 } ) ] \right\rvert $$
Help will be much appreciated ...
Peter==================================================================================
In the above proof, Conway mentions Cantor's Theorem ... so I am providing MHB readers with Conway's statement of Cantor's Theorem together with the relevant definition of the diameter of a set ... as follows:
View attachment 7445
Last edited: