Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A Summer of Maths (ASoM) 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex:)
    Or should I say the Sourier transform on a gunction using jmaginary numbers.
    Nice one xD
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Could someone give me a hint for how to solve this question without the fundamental theorem for finite abelian groups?

    Let  G be a finite abelian group such that it contains a subgroup  H_{0} which is contained in every subgroup  H \not = (e) . Prove that  G is cyclic.

    This is easy if I'm allowed to use the fact that G is the direct product of cyclic groups (with trivial intersections), as if we have more than 1 cyclic group in the product, we must have H0=(e) so G must be cyclic. But I am not allowed to use this theorem for the question. Prove a couple facts about the orders of G, H0 but not sure where to go from there...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    Could someone give me a hint for how to solve this question without the fundamental theorem for finite abelian groups?

    Let  G be a finite abelian group such that it contains a subgroup  H_{0} which is contained in every subgroup  H \not = (e) . Prove that  G is cyclic.

    This is easy if I'm allowed to use the fact that G is the direct product of cyclic groups (with trivial intersections), as if we have more than 1 cyclic group in the product, we must have H0=(e) so G must be cyclic. But I am not allowed to use this theorem for the question. Prove a couple facts about the orders of G, H0 but not sure where to go from there...
    Hint:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Lagrange's theorem for groups may be useful
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Slice of Pi)
    Hint:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Lagrange's theorem for groups may be useful
    lol yep Ive used this multiple times in my workings, not seen a solution free of FTFAG though. Probably the basis for every gt proof I've ever done
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnglishMuon)
    is there a context?
    Sorry, I should've included some context haha. I'm going through the Cambridge notes on the first page (by Dexter Chua I think) and this is included in the Differenitial Equations part.
    (Original post by Alex:)
    If there exists a constant M > 0, for which there exists N > 0, such that
    n > N \quad \Rightarrow \quad |f(x)| < M|g(x)|,
    then we write f(x) = O(g(x)).

    If for every \varepsilon > 0, there exists N > 0, such that
    n > N \quad \Rightarrow \quad |f(x)| < \varepsilon|g(x)|,
    then we write f(x) = o(g(x)).

    The analogue to big-O and little-o is very similar to less than and strictly less than. Big-O gives an upper bound to the growth, but the function can still approach its Big-O function asymptotically. Little-o is much more strict.

    There's other things like Omega, omega and Theta notation. A kinda rough intuition of them could be:
    o: f < g.
    O: f \leq g.
    \Theta: f = g.
    \Omega: f \geq g.
    \omega: f > g.
    Could you perhaps explain it in a less maths-y way? I come from a non-maths background (Physics), so I don't understand most of the notation that you have used
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone read Rudins 'principles of mathematical analysis'? How would it compare to burkill's 'A first course in mathematical analysis' ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Has anyone read Rudins 'principles of mathematical analysis'? How would it compare to burkill's 'A first course in mathematical analysis' ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rudin's book (Baby Rudin) is really inappropriate for anyone who has no knowledge of real analysis already. The book is really terse and everything is left as an exercise for the reader. His treatment of multi-variable analysis is also not the best.

    Never used Burkill's book. But I think Spivak's Calculus is really good for learning real analysis without knowledge of topology, and leads really well to his next book Calculus on Manifolds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex:)
    Rudin's book (Baby Rudin) is really inappropriate for anyone who has no knowledge of real analysis already. The book is really terse and everything is left as an exercise for the reader. His treatment of multi-variable analysis is also not the best.

    Never used Burkill's book. But I think Spivak's Calculus is really good for learning real analysis without knowledge of topology, and leads really well to his next book Calculus on Manifolds.
    Thanks! Ironically after posting this I realised I had Spivak's calculus as well, so i believe I'll use that instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Thanks! Ironically after posting this I realised I had Spivak's calculus as well, so i believe I'll use that instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I endorse what Alex: said and add that if you want something as challenging as Baby Rudin, but with more explanations, then Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis" is very good.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gregorius)
    I endorse what Alex: said and add that if you want something as challenging as Baby Rudin, but with more explanations, then Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis" is very good.
    Thanks I'll look into it, by the way, why are you guys calling him Baby Rudin?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Thanks I'll look into it, by the way, why are you guys calling him Baby Rudin?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They're not, they're calling the book baby Rudin because there's a more advanced version of the book as well - so the first book is affectionately termed baby Rudin.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    They're not, they're calling the book baby Rudin because there's a more advanced version of the book as well - so the first book is affectionately termed baby Rudin.
    oh i see thanks for clearing that up
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by drandy76)
    Thanks! Ironically after posting this I realised I had Spivak's calculus as well, so i believe I'll use that instead.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Good stuff - it'd be nice to get some analysis going in this thread, rather than being smothered in algebra. Analysis is nice and awesome, algebra is messy and unwieldy!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex:)
    Good stuff - it'd be nice to get some analysis going in this thread, rather than being smothered in algebra. Analysis is nice and awesome, algebra is messy and unwieldy!
    I shall be the hero this thread needs, muon and Pi's reign of terror ends here


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone up for some cheeky dynamics and/or special relativity

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    Anyone up for some cheeky dynamics and/or special relativity

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Literally never, gonna hire a ghost writer for that module


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gregorius)
    I endorse what Alex: said and add that if you want something as challenging as Baby Rudin, but with more explanations, then Apostol's "Mathematical Analysis" is very good.
    Why do people still suggest Rudin anyway? As Alex says, it's*awful.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Why do people still suggest Rudin anyway? As Alex says, it's*awful.
    It was more me finding the book and wondering if it was any good rather than a recommendation, at least I think so, there's s chance I might've gotten it from my Unis reading list


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Why do people still suggest Rudin anyway? As Alex says, it's*awful.
    Said with true passion

    It's one of those books that's most useful to those who have already covered the material and have developed their intuition. Even then, there are better choices these days, I think, especially in the form of all the free lecture notes dotted all over the place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krollo)
    Anyone up for some cheeky dynamics and/or special relativity

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Alex:)
    Good stuff - it'd be nice to get some analysis going in this thread, rather than being smothered in algebra. Analysis is nice and awesome, algebra is messy and unwieldy!
    Anyone wanna do some stats
    Spoiler:
    Show
    lol jk
    Spoiler:
    Show
    soz gregorius
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.