Analysis, Volume I
Terence Tao
Hindustan Book Agency, January 2006
Paper cover, 422 pages. ISBN 81-85931-62-3
This is basically an expanded and cleaned up version of my lecture notes for Math 131A. In the US, it is available through the American Mathematical Society. It is part of a two-volume series; here is my page for Volume II. A second edition is being prepared.
There are no solution guides for this text.
- Sample chapters (contents, natural numbers, set theory, integers and rationals, logic, decimal system, index)
— Errata —
- p.5, line 6 from bottom:
should be
.
- p. 59, Lemma 3.3.12: f should map Z to W, and h should map X to Y. In the proof of this lemma:
is a function from X to Z, and
is a function from Y to W.
- p. 67, last paragraph:
should be
.
- p. 98: In Exercise 4.2.1, Corollary 2.3.7 should be Corollary 4.1.9. In Exercise 4.2.6,
should be rational numbers, not real.
- p. 101: In Definition 4.3.9, after “
“, add “; in particular, we define
“.
- p. 127: In Exercise 5.3.4: add “(Hint: use Exercise 5.2.2.)”.
- p. 131, line 12 from bottom: “they cannot be than” should be “they cannot be larger than”.
- p. 175, Exercise 6.6.3: In the hint, replace “introduce” by “recursively introduce”, and insert “;
” after “
” (two occurrences), with the parenthetical “(omitting the
condition when
)” inserted after the recursive definition of
.
- p. 197, in second line of proof of Proposition 7.3.4: the second sum should be
rather than
.
- p. 216, Exercise 8.1.9: It needs to be noted that this exercise requires the axiom of choice from Section 8.4.
- p. 220, Lemma 8.2.5: It needs to be noted that this lemma requires the axiom of choice from Section 8.4. Similarly, the case in Proposition 8.2.6 in which X is uncountable requires the axiom of choice also.
- p. 227, Exercise 8.3.2:
should be
.
- p. 236, last line: “for any good set Y’” should be “for any good set Y’ with
non-empty”.
- p. 255, Proposition 9.3.9(b):
should be
.
- p. 303, Exercise 10.4.3(a): The limit should be in the set
rather than
.
- p. 336, line 13: replace “we have made no assumption on
” with “the function
could have been arbitrary”.
- p. 337, Exercise 11.8.1: Lemma 11.8.1 should be Lemma 11.8.4.
- p. 337, Exercise 11.8.5: In the last display,
should be
.
- p. 342, Exercise 11.9.1: “the function f is not differentiable” should be “the function
is not differentiable.
- p. 383, first display:
should be
.
- p. 387, fourth display:
should be
.
— Errata for the second edition —
- p. xii, bottom: “solidifed” -> “solidified”.
- p. xiv, top: “to know how to to” –> “to know how to”.
- p. 51, Exercise 3.1.1: (3.1.4) should be Definition 3.1.4.
- p. 79, 5th line of proof of Lemma 3.6.9:
should be
.
- p.80, 6th line of proof of Proposition 3.6.8: Proposition 3.6.4 should be Lemma 3.6.9.
- p. 157, Theorem 5.2.11(b), (c): Replace “Suppose that
” with “Suppose that
” (two occurrences).
- p. 157, Exercise 6.2.2: Proposition 6.2.11 should be Theorem 6.2.11.
- p. 175, Exercise 6.6.5: Replace “the formula
, explaining why the set
is non-empty” with “the recursive formula
, with the convention
, explaining why the set
is non-empty”.
- p. 195, Exercise 7.2.6: Add “How does the proposition change if we assume that
does not converge to zero, but instead converges to some other real number
?”
- p. 215, Exercise 8.1.1: This exercise requires the axiom of choice, Axiom 8.1.
- p. 227, Exercise 8.3.2:
should be an injection rather than a bijection. In the definition of
,
should be
(two occurrences).
- p. 231, Exercise 8.4:
should be
.
- p. 247, Lemma 9.1.21. One needs the additional hypothesis “We assume that
.”
- p. 291, Proposition 10.1.7: One needs the additional hypothesis
. Similarly for Proposition 10.1.10, theorem 10.1.13, and Proposition 10.3.1.
- p. 292, Definition 10.1.11: “For every
” should be “For every limit point
.
- p. 293, Remark 10.1.14: Leibnitz should be Leibniz.
- p. 296, Definition 10.2.1:
should be
.
Thanks to Evangelos Georgiadis, Erik Koelink, Manoranjan Majji, Pieter Naaijkens, Cristina Pereyra, Tim Reijnders, Pieter Roffelsen, Luke Rogers, Marc Schoolderman, Daan Wanrooy, Yandong Xiao, and the students of Math 401/501 and Math 402/502 at the University of New Mexico for corrections.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
9 July, 2008 at 8:09 am
John Franks
The link to Volume II on this page is broken. It is a link to this page.
Instead it should be
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/books/analysis-ii/
10 July, 2008 at 9:33 am
Terence Tao
Thanks for the correction!
9 September, 2008 at 10:33 am
luke rogers
one of my students points out that in ex 4.2.1 on page 98 a better hint is Corol 4.1.9 rather than Corol 2.3.7.
10 September, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Terence Tao
Dear Luke: Thanks for the correction!
16 January, 2009 at 6:56 am
Edoardo Buscicchio
The two links to Hindustan Book Agency seem broken.
The Hindustan Book Agency home page’s link is:
http://www.hindbook.com/
but in the whole web site there’s no trace about the textbook (neither volume I nor Volume II)
16 January, 2009 at 7:37 am
Edoardo Buscicchio
here’s the link for the textbook’s page:
Volume I
http://www.hindbook.com/trims_pub.php?pubid=37
Volume II
http://www.hindbook.com/trims_pub.php?pubid=38
16 January, 2009 at 8:50 am
Terence Tao
Dear Eduardo: Thanks for the correction!
17 January, 2009 at 6:40 am
Edoardo Buscicchio
Hi prof. Tao,
I’d like to propose a correction if I’m not wrong.
Pag 28 – Lemma 2.2.2 – Line 8:
“The base case 0+0=0 follows since we know that 0+m = m for every natural m, and 0 is a natural number.”
This doesn’t seem wrong, but I think it doesn’t follows since the definition (2.2.1) of addition 0+m=m; conversely, it seems that given definition of addition inductly follows since the statement 0+0=0.
In fact, I think that in the definition 2.2.1 (page 27) induction isn’t used only to define the addition, but, implicitly, induction is used also defining base case’s definition 0+m=m: when we fix a natural m and say that this definition will be useful for each natural, we’re using the induction on the base case 0+0=0. Otherwise, how to define the property 0+m=m for each natural?
So, in Lemma 2.2.2, maybe 0+0=0 is (and doesn’t follow) the statement 0+m=m.
Sorry if my reasonging is in a such kind trivial or wrong, I was just trying to avoid misunderstanding for my studies.
2 October, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Keith Dow
Dear Professor Tao,
Do you have as estimate for when the second edition will be available to purchase?
Thank you for your time,
Keith Dow
22 October, 2009 at 6:04 am
anonymous
Dear Prof. Tao,
I have a question about Axiom 2.5. Let A be a set such that
if a property P(n) is true for every element of B={0,1,2,…}, then P(n)
is true for every element of A, and A and B are distinct sets.
Let C is the union of A and B. Then can’t we see C as
the set of natural numbers?
22 October, 2009 at 7:44 am
Terence Tao
Well, if A and B are disjoint sets, note that the property P(n) := “n lies in B” is true for all n in B, but false for all n in A. So Axiom 2.5 fails in this case.
There is however a subtle loophole here: it may be that you are working in a logical system in which “n lies in B” is not considered a valid property of n. In this case it is indeed possible to have number systems that are strictly larger than the standard natural numbers B, in which the Peano axioms still hold. Such systems are known as non-standard natural numbers and are useful in a number of branches of mathematics. (More generally, it is not possible to pin down any number system precisely using an explicit (or more precisely, recursively enumerable) set of axioms, a consequence of Godel’s completeness and incompleteness theorems; one must always admit the possibility of non-standard models).
This is however a somewhat more advanced topic than what is covered in the text. You can see my blog post
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ultrafilters-nonstandard-analysis-and-epsilon-management/
for more discussion.