Analysis, Volume II
Terence Tao
Hindustan Book Agency, January 2006
Paper cover, 274 pages. ISBN 81-85931-62-3
This is basically an expanded and cleaned up version of my lecture notes for Math 131B. 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 I.
— Errata to the first edition —
- p. 392, example 12.1.7:
should be
.
- p. 393, example 12.1.9:
should be
.
- p. 394, example 12.1.13: (iii) should be (c).
- p. 403, example 12.2.13: delete the redundant “, but not the other”.
- p. 404, line 4: “neither open and closed” should be “neither open nor closed”.
- p. 415, line 3:
should be
.
- p. 416, line 11: “
” should be “
“.
- p. 419, line -2: In Exercise 12.5.15, = should be
. Also, “that by counterexample” should be “by counterexample that”
- p. 426, Exercise 13.2.9:
should be
throughout. Also, the definition of limsup and liminf for functions has not been given; it can be reviewed here, e.g. by inserting “where we define
and
.”
- p. 435, Definition 13.5.6: “metric space” should be “topological space”.
- p. 438, Exercise 13.5.9: One needs to assume as an additional hypothesis that X is first countable, which means that for every x in X there exists a countable sequence V_n of neighborhoods of x, such that every neighbourhood of x contains one of the V_n.
- p. 452, Exercise 14.3.6: “Propositoin” should be “Proposition”.
- p. 452, Exercise 14.3.8: “
” should be “
“.
- p. 458: Exercise 14.5.2 should be deleted and redirected to Exercise 14.2.2(c).
- p. 459: In line 11,
should be
.
- p. 464: ) missing at the end of Exercise 14.7.2. An additional exercise, Exercise 14.7.3 is missing; it should state “Prove Corollary 14.7.3.”.
- p. 466: Exercise 14.8.8 should be Exercise 14.8.2.
- p. 467: Exercise 14.8.11 should be Exercise 14.8.4.
- p. 469: “Limits of integration” should be “Limits of summation”. In Lemma 14.8.14,
should be
, and Exercise 14.8.14 should be Exercise 14.8.6.
- p. 470: Exercise 14.8.15 should be Exercise 14.8.7. Exercise 14.8.16 should refer to a (currently non-existent) Exercise 14.8.9, which of course would be to prove Lemma 14.8.16.
- p. 471: At the end of the proof of Corollary 14.8.19,
should be
.
- p. 472: In Exercise 14.8.2(c), Lemma 14.8.2 should be Lemma 14.8.8.
- p. 477: In Exercise 15.1.1(e), Corollary 14.8.18 should be Corollary 14.6.2.
- p. 478: In Example 15.2.2,
should be
.
- p. 482: In Exercise 15.2.5, the
on the right-hand side should be
.
- p. 486: In second and third display, y should be in
rather than
.
- p. 493: In Exercise 15.5.4,
should be
.
- p. 502: In Exercise 15.6.6, Lemma 15.6.6 should be Lemma 15.6.11.
- p. 511: “Fourier… was, among other things, the governor of Egypt during the reign of Napoleon. After the Napoleonic wars, he returned to mathematics.” should be “Fourier… was, among other things, an administrator accompanying Napoleon on his invasion of Egypt, and then a Prefect in France during Napoleon’s reign.”
- p. 556: In Theorem 17.5.4, f can take values in
and not just in
; insert the line “By working with one component of
at a time, we may assume
” as the first line of the proof. Also,
should be
.
- p. 557: In the second display,
should be
.
- p. 560: In Exercise 17.6.1, add the hypothesis “and
is continuous” before “, show that
is a strict contraction”.
- p. 561: In Exercise 17.6.3, change “which is a strict contraction” to “such that
for all distinct
in
“. In Exercise 17.6.8,
should be
.
- p. 562: In Theorem 17.7.2,
should be
.
- p. 565, line -7:
should be
rather than
.
- p. 570, first display: all partial derivatives should have a – sign (not just the first one). Last paragraph: “Thus
lies in W” should be “Thus
lies in U”.
- p. 571, second display: add “
” at the end.
- p. 584, Corollary 18.2.7: “
” should be “
“.
- p. 599, Definition 18.5.9:
should be
.
- p. 600: In Lemma 18.5.10,
should be
. In the second and fourth lines of the proof of this lemma,
should be
.
- p. 616-617, Exercise 19.2.10:
should be
throughout.
— Errata to the second edition —
- p. 546: In Definition 17.3.7,
should be
, and
should be
.
- p. 548: In the definition of L in the proof of Theorem 17.3.8, m should be n.
- p. 625, Remark 19.5.2: x and y should be swapped in “equals 1 when
and y=0, equals -1 when
and y=0, and equals zero otherwise”.
Thanks to Carlos, EO, Florian, Eric Koelink, Wang Kunyang, Jason M., Manoranjan Majji, Geoff Mess, Cristina Pereyra, Haokun Xu, and the students of Math 401/501 and Math 402/502 at the University of New Mexico for corrections.

34 comments
Comments feed for this article
23 November, 2007 at 10:37 am
Anonymous
Dear Terry,
The AMS url in your post links to another book rather than “Analysis II.” Additionally, I was trying to order the book from Amazon, and was only able to order “Analysis I” through Amazon directly, but couldn’t do the same for “Analysis II”, even though a page exists for the second volume. Any plans on it being sold *directly* by Amazon?
Thanks!
23 November, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Terence Tao
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the bad link report. I just checked Amazon and the second volume is currently available (well, there are two copies available, at least):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8185931631/ref=pd_cp_b_0?pf_rd_p=317711001&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=8185931623&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ES3B9XEHE3S5E7CKHCS
But it is a rather low volume item, so availability is likely to continue to be spotty.
20 February, 2009 at 4:30 am
carlos
Dear Professor Tao,
First of all I would like you to congratulate you for the two volumes of the book. I had been looking for a reference to revise calculus from scratch and they have proven invaluable.
I would like to point out a few other minor errata I noticed:
p. 471 at the end of the proof |P(y)-g(y)| should be |P(y)-f(y)|
p.477 ex. 15.1.1 corollary 14.6.2 seems a better hint for (e)
p.482 ex.15.2.5 at the end of the identity, the last exponent should be m and not n
I also have a small question concerning Ex. 15.1.1 in page 477. To prove (c) the hint is to use the Weierstrass M-test. However, in the case of a function with an infinite convergence radius (such as for example sin(x) ), the sup norm of each of the f_n is infinite and consequently their infinite sum is not convergent, so I don’t see how the test can be applied. I am probably just making some basic mistake and I would really appreciate it if someone could point it out…
20 February, 2009 at 9:09 am
Terence Tao
Dear Carlos,
Thanks for the corrections! For Ex. 15.1.1(c), one is only asking for uniform convergence on a compact interval [a-r,a+r] (r can be arbitrarily large, but is finite), and in this case the summands are absolultely convergent.
22 March, 2009 at 10:37 am
Florian
Dear Professor Tao,
firstly, I can only agree with Carlos and I congratulate you to your book as well. I especially like the structure of it because you emphasize the importance of the basic elements of analysis (which aren’t obvious at all…).
I have a question concerning your example on page 625. Is the given example function f(x,y) really not (absolutley) integrable over y in x=0?
It would make sense to me, if it wasn’t integrable over x in y=0. Or am I wrong?
Best regards,
Florian
24 March, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Terence Tao
Oops, you’re right, it should be switched. Thanks!
22 April, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Mark
Professor Tau,
I am attempting exercise 12.5.14 in Analysis II and would like to know if you could elaborate on the hint given.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark
23 April, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Terence Tao
Dear Mark,
By compactness, the sequence
in the hint has a subsequence which converges to a limit
in E. Now compute what the distance of x to
is.
23 April, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Mark
Dear Professor Tau,
Thank you for taking the time to assist me.
Your help has been greatly appreciated.
Mark
30 April, 2009 at 9:15 am
Jorge
Dear Professor Tao,
I’m trying to crack Ex. 14.8.2. in your Analysis II but I’m stuck on the part c), namely on the estimation|c*(1 – x^2)^N| <= epsilon which must hold for delta <= |x| <= 1 (this is precisely the condition from part c) in the definition of the approximation to the identity, I mean…). How can I now use part b) of the same Ex. here? Or this is not the case?
Thank you.
Jorge
30 April, 2009 at 10:06 am
Terence Tao
Dear Jorge,
Part (b) ensures that the normalising constant c only grows polynomially in N (or more precisely, is bounded by
for some C). On the other hand, once x is bounded away from zero,
decays exponentially in N (uniformly in x). As exponential decay always beats polynomial growth, the integral of
away from zero will go to zero.
30 April, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Jorge
So that f_N(x) := c(1-x^2)^N goes to zero function uniformly as N tends to infinity?
1 May, 2009 at 8:54 am
Terence Tao
On any set of the form
, yes.
1 May, 2009 at 9:15 am
Jorge
Thank you very much for your time. It is really great thing to be able to consult with you online.
Jorge
23 May, 2009 at 6:31 am
HASSAN JOLANY
HELLO I AM STUDENT UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN I STUDY ABOUT THE POINCARE CONJECTURE FOR MY THESIS CAN I ASK YOU SOME OF MY PROBLEMS
BEST REGARD FOR YOU
1 June, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Joe
Dear Professer Tao,
I am attempting exercise 14.2.1 (a) from Analysis II. What do I need to show? For the “only if” direction I think I need to show that if f is continuous and the sequence goes to zero then I have pointwise convergence (is this right?), but I am not sure about the “if” direction. Can you give me any help? Thank you,
- Joe
2 June, 2009 at 8:42 am
Mark
Dear Prof Tao,
Is there any way I could get or browse the answers for all the exercises in Analysis 2?
2 June, 2009 at 9:43 am
Terence Tao
Dear Joe,
Yes, this is the “only if” part. The “if part” asserts that if f is a function such that
converges pointwise to f for every sequence
converging to zero, then f is necessarily continuous.
Dear Mark: I do not have an answer key for the exercises. Some of the exercises are based on my classes at
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tao/resource/general/131ah.1.03w/
which have a partial solution set, but this is far from complete (also, some of the wording of the exercises changed when converted to book form).
2 June, 2009 at 5:05 pm
mark
Thank you prof. Another thing is there any solutions for all the homeworks of your Math131BH?
2 June, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Ali Nesin
Hi prof,
I do come across this q and really need your advise.
Suppose (X,d1), (X,d2) are two metric spaces over the same set X, and c1, c2 are strictly positive.
How do we show that (X,d), where d = c1d1 + c2d2 is also metric space?
2 June, 2009 at 8:44 pm
timur
Dear Ali Nesin,
Try going over the metric space axioms d has to satisfy. Which axiom(s) are you having trouble with?
3 June, 2009 at 1:02 am
Ali Nesin
I do have trouble actually in understanding the q. I think it is the real line, R I’m dealing with. Am I right?
3 June, 2009 at 1:18 pm
timur
Dear Ali Nesin,
I think you should ask your question on a forum like the following (I hope prof. Tao’s does not mind):
http://www.sciforums.com/
http://www.mathlinks.ro/Forum/
You even might find your question already answered.
5 June, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Mark
Mark
Professor Tau,
I am attempting exercise 14.8.8 in Analysis II and would like to know if you could elaborate on the hint given.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mark
6 June, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Anonymous
In the proof of Abel’s Theorem on page 487 is the limit superior suppose to be as y approaches 1 instead of as n approaches infinity?
6 June, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Mark Werner
This is Mark Werner.
I am the original ‘Mark’ in this blog who asked about question 12.5.14. I am not the most recent ‘Mark’ asking about question 14.8.8 which has been set as a take home exam question with no consultation allowed. I believe someone in the class is pretending to be me, since the question was asked in exactly the same way as my original one, including the misspelling your name. I am posting this just to ensure that my name is clear.
Thank you.
- Mark
7 June, 2009 at 10:29 am
student
Dear Prof Tao,
is it possible to find a 1-1 map from [0,1] to (0,1)?
thanks
7 June, 2009 at 10:44 am
timur
Dear student,
There is a general theorem in set theory (called Cantor-Bernstein theorem) that says that for two sets A and B if there are injective maps A -> B and B -> A then there exists a bijective map A -> B. I believe Cantor proved it using AC and later Bernstein gave a constructive proof without AC.
7 June, 2009 at 2:39 pm
student
Thank you Timur,
actually I want to apply that theorem, there is an obvious 1-1 map from (0,1) to [0,1] but I could not find a 1-1 map from [0,1] to (0,1).
if anyone knows, please let me know
thanks
7 June, 2009 at 3:07 pm
timur
Sorry, I misunderstood your question; you can scale and translate [0,1] to, say, [z,1-z] for some z>0 to get an injective map [0,1] -> (0,1).
7 June, 2009 at 3:15 pm
student
good idea thanks Dear Timur
7 June, 2009 at 7:41 pm
geometry beginner
can anyone suggest me a nice introductory book on differential geometry and algebraic topology? my background is just point set topology.
if you know nice introductory survey articles as well, please let me know.
thanks
18 July, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Jason M.
Hello — I had a couple of very small observations:
On page 546, in Definition 17.3.7 (Partial derivative), $f$ is a function defined on a subset of $R^n$, and you are defining the partial derivative with respect to $x_j$, but you index $j$ from 1 to $m$ instead of from 1 to $n$.
Later in that same definition, you write $\lim_{t\to 0;t\neq 0;x_0+tv\in E}$, when I think it ought to be $x_0+te_j$ instead of $x_0+tv$.
Thanks! –Jason
18 July, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Jason M.
Hello again — I have noticed one more thing:
On page 548, in the proof of Theorem 17.3.8, when you are defining the linear transformation L, you index j from 1 to m instead of 1 to n.
These are pretty small details, but I think they could cause confusion for someone unfamiliar with the material!
Thanks! –Jason
[Thanks for the corrections - T.]