Last updated: Oct 12, 2013

Poincaré’s legacies: pages from year two of a mathematical blog (Volume I, Volume II)
Terence Tao
American Mathematical Society
Volume I: ISBN-10 0-8218-4883-6, ISBN-13 978-0-8218-4883-8
Volume II: ISBN-10 0-8218-4885-2, ISBN-13 978-0-8218-4885-2

This is a sequel to “Structure and Randomness: Pages from year one of a mathematical blog“, in two volumes.

A draft version of the MS can be found here (note that the printed version will have substantially different page and section numbering, in particular being split into two volumes).

The front cover for the first volume is here, and for the second volume is here.

– Errata for the first volume –

• Page 9: In Section 1.3, the sketch of proof of Green’s theorem (Theorem 1.3.7) has a serious gap; the problem is that the quotiented orbit of $(g^{n+h} x, g^n x)$ may possibly have a constant image with respect to a horizontal character.  It seems that to use this type of argument to obtain the full strength of Theorem 1.3.7 (and not just some special cases) one needs the more complicated quantitative van der Corput argument from [GrTa2009c].
• Page 21: In the first display after (1.19), $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n_j} X_{\leq n_j}$ should be $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n_j} |X_{\leq n_j}|^2$.
• Page 27: In (1.37), $|t|$ should be $|t|_p$.
• Page 64: In the two long displays the symbol P is missing just before the right bracket ] on most of the lines of the displays.
• Page 70: In the final display, $\rho(g,x)$ should be $\rho(h,x)$.
• Page 87: In Exercise 2.2.4, the last sentence should be phrased as a question, i.e. “Does there exist analogous claims in the categories of dynamical systems and measure-preserving systems?”.
• Page 95: Remark 2.3.7 is inaccurate regarding the left-continuity of $\beta S$ (see this paper for the subtle issues arising here) and should be deleted.
• Page 99: Exercise 2.4.5 is not relevant at this juncture and should be deleted.
• Page 102: in the proof of Proposition 2.4.11, $p_*$ should lie in $*{\Bbb N}\backslash {\Bbb N}$ rather than $*{\Bbb Z}\backslash {\Bbb Z}$.  In particular, the parenthetical remark about setting $p_*$ equal to $p$ should be deleted.
• Page 104: In the proof of Lemma 2.4.13, $V$ should be $U$.
• Page 110: A similar ultrafilter proof also appears in Section 3 of N. Hindman’s paper “Problems and new results in the algebra of Beta S and Ramsey Theory” in “Unsolved problems on mathematics for the 21st century”, J. Abe and S. Tanaka eds., IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001), 295-305.
• Page 113: Lemma 2.5.14 should be called the Ellis-Numakura lemma rather than the Ellis-Namakura lemma.  (Similarly for the index entry for this lemma.)
• Page 134: In Example 2.7.2, $(0,1/2n)$ should be $(1/2n,0)$, and $(\alpha, \frac{n(n-1)}{2} \alpha + \frac{1}{2})$ should be $(n\alpha, \frac{n(n-1)}{2} \alpha + \frac{1}{2})$.
• Page 135: In Exercise 2.7.2(5), it should be explicitly stated that X is assumed to be distal.
• Page 137: After Exercise 2.7.8, the reference to Exercise 2.7.5 should be to Exercise 2.7.3 instead.
• Page 139: After (2.54), W should be K.
• Page 141: Exercise 2.7.14 is the same as 2.9.13 and should be deleted.
• Page 143:  The last sentence of the proof of Theorem 2.8.2 is redundant and should be deleted.  In Exercise 2.8.3, $\mu(X)$ should read $\mu(E)$ (two occurrences).
• Page 144: The first proof of von Neumann’s ergodic theorem is due to F. Riesz, rather than von Neumann, and the text should be edited accordingly.  After (2.63), “uniformly in $n$” should be “uniformly in $N$“.  Also $H^U + \overline{W}$ should be $H^U + W$.
• Page  146: After (2.67), $\frac{\lambda^N-\lambda}{\lambda-1}$ should be $\frac{\lambda^N-1}{\lambda-1}$.
• Page 150: In Exercise 2.8.9, Corollary 2.8.12 should be Corollary 2.8.16.
• Page 152: In Theorem 2.9.1, in the definition of $Mf$, the summation should be from $0$ to $N-1$, rather than from $1$ to $N$.
• Page 153: In the first display, the equality sign should be a $\leq$ sign instead.
• Page 157: In Exercise 2.9.6, the probability space should be assumed to be standard Borel (in order to define the countable product space properly).
• Page 158: In the first paragraph of Section 2.9.4, “Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $T$” should be “Borel $\sigma$-algebra of ${\mathcal F}$“.  In Exercise 2.9.10, “measure on $T$” should be $measure on$latex X\$”. For Exercise 2.9.9, “if and only if” should just be “only if”, and the additional hypothesis that $U$ has a boundary of measure zero should be added.
• Page 159: In Exercise 2.9.13, one needs to add the additional hypothesis that the support of the invariant measure $\mu$ is equal to the whole space $X$.
• Page 160: In Example 2.9.17, “from $Y$ to $X$ and from $X$ to $Z$” should be ”from $Y$ to $Z$ and from $X$ to $Y$“. Also, all integrals here should be over Y rather than over X.
• Page 162: In the right-hand side of (2.96), the factor $g(y)$ should be moved outside the inner integral (for clarity).  In Exercise 2.9.14, $\nu_y$ should be $\mu_y$.
• Page 167: After (2.100), the range $1 \leq a \leq N$ should be replaced with $1 \leq a \leq N/N_0$.
• Pages 189, 194: In Exercise 2.12.15, and also in the first paragraph of Section2.12.4, Corollary 2.12.8 should be Corollary 2.12.13.  After Remark 2.12.24, Proposition 2.12.15 sohuld be Proposition 2.12.14.
• Page 195: In Exercise 2.12.22, $\int_X (f\ d\mu)^2$ should be $(\int_X f\ d\mu)^2$.
• Page 203: In (2.159), the $O(\varepsilon)$ term is unnecessary, and (2.151) and”and relative Cauchy Schwarz again” may be deleted from the preceding line.  After (2.160), the parenthetical remark can be deleted, and after (2.161), “again” may be deleted.
• Page 207: In (2.168), the second $f_1$ should be $f_d$.
• Page 208: the integration $\int_X\ d\mu$ is missing from the summand.
• Page 210: In Proposition 2.14.11, the “weak operator topology” should be clarified to “the weak operator topology of $L^2(X)$“, and it should also be parenthetically noted that the $S_{f,N}$ are uniformly bounded in the Hilbert space $L^2(X)$.
• Page 216: After (2.188), “on a set of measure $O_c(\varepsilon^2)$” should be ”outside of a set of measure $O_c(\varepsilon^2)$“.
• Page 218: In Exercise 2.16.1(7), “H/[H,K] and K/[H,K] become abelian” should be “the images of H and K become groups that commute with each other”.
• Page 221: In Example 2.16.9, $[0,y+x \hbox{ mod } 1]$ should just be $[0,y]$.
• Page 222: In Example 2.16.13, the group element g should have a coefficient of -1 instead of 1 in the third column, second row position.
• Page 223: In (2.203), $n+1$ should be $n-1$.
• Page 231: The proof of Lemma 2.17.5 is incomplete, because U and D do not fully generate $SL_2({\bf R})$.  To finish the argument, observe that $d^t w^\varepsilon d^{-t}$ converges to the identity as $t \to +\infty$, and thus $\langle \rho(d^t w^\varepsilon d^{-t}) v, v \rangle \to \langle v, v \rangle$.  Using the D-invariance we conclude that $\rho(w^\varepsilon) v, v \rangle = \langle v, v \rangle$, and thus as before v is also invariant with respect to the group U’ generated by the $w^\varepsilon$.  Since U and U’ (and D, if desired) generate $SL_2({\Bbb R})$, the claim follows.
• Pages 232-233: The proof of Lemma 2.17.9 requires some changes.  In the penultimate paragraph, “any g in L” should be “any g in L with $gx_0$ sufficiently close to $x_0$“.    The final paragraph needs to be changed to the following: “Suppose that $Lx_0$ is not closed; then one can find a sequence $g_n x_0$ in $Lx_0$ that converges to $x_0$ but with the $g_m g_n^{-1}$ staying bounded away from the identity for $m \neq n$.  For a sufficiently small compact neighbourhood $K$ of the identity in $L$, the sets $K g_n x_0$ then are disjoint and all have the same measure for $n$ large enough; since $\mu(Lx_0)=1$, this forces these sets to be null.  But then the invariant measure $m$ annihilates $K$ and is thus null as well, a contradiction.”
• Page 235: In Proposition 2.17.12, $x_n,y_n$ should lie in $G/\Gamma$ rather than $G$.  In the proof of that proposition, $g_*$ should be $g^*$.

– Errata for the second volume –

• Page ???: After (1.17), “multiply $c_k$ by a scalar” should be  ”multiply $v_k$ by a scalar”.  Two pages previously, the display for U+E has an extraneous space.
• Page ???: In the second line of (2.45), the first negative sign should be positive, and the positive sign should be negative.
• Page ???: Before (2.38): the heat equation $\partial_t u + \Delta u = F$ should be $\partial_t u - \overline{\Delta} u = F$.
• Page 136: After (2.170), “slows down the flow of time by $1/\lambda$” should be “slows down the flow of time by $1/\lambda^2$“.
• Page 229: The formulation of the Hamilton compactness theorem given here needs an additional hypothesis, namely a uniform lower bound on the Ricci curvature.  More precisely, for any compact interval J there exists a K such that for every radius r one has $\hbox{Ric} \geq -K$ on $J \times B_{g_n(t_0)}(p_n,r)$ for all sufficiently large n.  This is needed to prevent the length of a geodesic going off to infinity from collapsing to a finite length, causing incompleteness.  (It was recently shown by Topping that the formulation of the compactness theorem give in the text can fail without such a hypothesis.  However, in the applications to the Poincare conjecture one has the uniform lower bound on curvature, so this is ultimately not a major issue.)
• Page 270: “width of the necks goes to infinity” should be “width of the necks goes to zero”.
• Page 290: The reference [Zhang2007] should be “Zhang, Qi S.,   Strong noncollapsing and uniform Sobolev inequalities for Ricci flow with surgeries. Pacific J. Math. 239 (2009), no. 1, 179–200″.

Thanks to Fransisc Bozgan, Rex Cheung, Paul-Olivier Dehaye, Daoyuan Han, Neil Hindman, Ioannis Kontoyiannis, Sajjad Lakzian, Jeff Lin, Xiaochuan Liu, Freddie Manners, Hee Oh, Pavel, Robert Tu, Siming Tu, Mate Wierdl, Qi Zhang, Yunfeng Zhang, Tamar Ziegler, Pavel Zorin, and an anonymous commenter for corrections and references.