« first day (1815 days earlier)      last day (2085 days later) » 

2:02 PM
36
A: Why should one still teach Riemann integration?

Pete L. ClarkHere are some unpolemical facts concerning the Riemann integral: 1) The Riemann integral has a geometric interpretation which is different than that of the Lebesgue integral and is certainly useful in some places. For a bounded set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^N$, Riemann integrability of the characte...

I see that Pete L. Clark removed this:
> (I especially fondly remember the It Doesn't Matter Lemma from page 6 of these notes. I used it often.)
The new text is:
> Added many years later: I no longer have a reasonable copy of the course notes referred to above. I used them as a basis for a treatment of Riemann integration in a later course: please see Chapter 8 of these notes.
2
A: Analysis from a categorical perspective

Pete L. ClarkThis community wiki answer is addressed to the OP's comment that he is looking for an "axiomatic" approach to the integral. I don't (yet) understand what axioms have to do with category theory. In particular, with respect to the example you give, I don't see what is particularly categorical abo...

6
A: Can a limit to zero of a limit to zero assume they're both going at the same rate?

Pete L. ClarkI wish to respectfully point out a suboptimality in your approach: you are trying to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by yourself and by talking to a (possibly not very knowledgeable, but I don't know the whole story) teacher. This is not necessary: there are literally thousands of book...

10
A: The 2nd part of the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus."

Pete L. ClarkIt's natural that the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has two parts, since morally it expresses the fact that differentiation and integration are mutually inverse processes, and this amounts to two statements: (i) integrating and then differentiating and (ii) differentiating and then integrating ...

2
Q: Do the locally integrable functions on the real line form a sheaf, and can they be defined in this fashion?

Mozibur UllahIn his notes: http://math.uga.edu/~pete/243integrals1.pdf, Pete Clark outlines an axiomatic approach to the Riemann Integral. He doesn't use the language of sheafs, but it seems implicit in his definition before Theorem 1. He goes on to show that the fundamental theorem of calculus follows, and ...

I have added Wayback Machine link in the posts on Mathematics site. For the two posts on MO, perhaps it's better to ask Pete L. Clark what he wants to do with them.
@Tommi: Thanks for the tip. Those were very old notes: I looked back, and the latex file that I had needed some work even to compile. I have a (relatively) recent and (relatively) more polished set of notes that includes Riemann integration, so I went back and linked to that. I couldn't find the "It Doesn't Matter Lemma" stated explicitly therein -- I guess it really doesn't matter! — Pete L. Clark 23 hours ago
@PeteL.Clark Some version of the link you removed is still available in the Wayback Machine snapshot. There are also two other posts on MO with the same link - I do not know whether you want to edit those two posts or whether simply adding a link to the archived version in a comment is enough. (I have already edited the two posts I found on Mathematics Stack Exchange.) — Martin Sleziak 1 min ago
 

« first day (1815 days earlier)      last day (2085 days later) »