real analysis – If $f(k) = x^k$ for rational $k$ is continuous at single rational value, will it necessary be continuous for all other rational points?

Suppose $f(k) = x^k$ is a function mapping $mathbb{Q}tomathbb{R}$ where $k$ is rational and $x>0$. If we can prove continuity at a single point in $mathbb{Q}$ is it necessarily the case $f$ will be continuous over all $mathbb{Q}$?

Suppose that single point is taken to be $x’$ with $f : mathbb{Q} to mathbb R$. Then,

forall varepsilon > 0, exists delta > 0 quad text{s.t. with} x’ in D, quad left|x-x’right| < delta quad Rightarrow quad |f(x)-f(x’)| < varepsilon

From here, is it possible to extrapolate the structure and ascertain if it will hold over all $mathbb{Q}$?

real analysis – show that $ f $ is continuous in $a$

If $I = (a,b) $ and suppose $f : I → R $ is increasing in $I$, then $f$ is continuous in $a$ if and only if

$f(a)$ = $inf$ ${f(x):x ∈→ (a,b)}$
I’ve solved it this way, okay? If not, please help me correct it.

Let $f$ continue en $x=a →$ lim $x_→a^+$ $f(x)=f(a)$
Let’s suppose $inf{f(x)/ x ∈ )a,b(}) = L ≠ f(a)→L>f(a)$

lim $_{x→a^+}$ $f(x)=f(a)→$ si $varepsilon = frac{f(a)-L}{2}>0, exists delta$ $> 0 / a<x<a + delta →|f(x)-f(a)|<varepsilon →$
$|f(x)-f(a)|< frac{f(a)-L}{2}→f(x)-f(a) <frac{f(a)-L}{2}→ 2f(x)-2f(a)<f(a)-L→$
$f(x)<frac{3f(a)-L}{2}→ f(x)<frac{3f(a)-f(a)}{2}→f(x)<f(a)$ contradiction then $ x>a$

quadratic forms – Is where a trigonometric field which is different enough from real numbers?

I found this topic in a book ‘Metric Affine Geometry’ by Ernst Snapper and Robert J. Troyer.
I call a field $k$ trigonometric iff there is a quadratic form $q$ over $k^2$ such that every two lines through the origin in $k^2$ is isometric with respect to $q$. This condition is sufficient to introduce trigonometric functions over $mathbf{SO}(k^2,q)$ in a geometric fashion. Hence, a name.

Obviously, $mathbb{R}$ is trigonometric. I know, that to be trigonometric the field $k$ must Pythagorean, that is for every finite sequence of values $(alpha_i)^n_{i=1} in k^n$ there is a $gamma in k$ such that
sum^n_{i=1} alpha_i^2 = gamma^2,

namely every sum of squares is a square. Secondly it must be a formally real field, which means that $-1$ is not a sum of squares. Hence, sadly $mathbb{Q},mathbb{C},mathbb{R}(x),mathbb{Q}_p,mathbb{F}_p$ are all not trigonometric. Probably some extension of $mathbb{R}(x)$ which allows square roots of formally positive functions may work. But I still doubt that it can be totally-ordered, and probably there are some clews in differential Galois theory. Maybe $hat{mathbb{Q}} cap mathbb{R}$, where $hat{mathbb{Q}}$ are algebraic numbers will work, or just adjoining enough real algebraic square roots to mathbb{Q} (call it a Pythagorean closure $overline{mathbb{Q}}$). At least it is Pythagorean and formally real. But I don’t think it is interesting enough.

But I’m very a curious about finding an interesting example of trigonometric field different from $mathbb{R}$. Trigonometric field $k$ different from $mathbb{R}$ may mean formally that $k$ is not between $overline{mathbb{Q}}$ and $mathbb{R}$. I would be very grateful if you could suggest one.
If the result are negative, this would mean that class of all trigonometric fields has certain lower and upper bounds.

Follow as I build a real makeup Shopify store from scratch

I’m a website designer and developer, I’ve built commercial e-commerce stores before and I’m always asked “how do you create an online store?” thinking they need to hire me or unsure where to start.

So I created a full tutorial video aimed at people who use the Internet, social media, etc. regularly but not technical or coders themselves. I walk you through creating a real online makeup store on Shopify from scratch while giving tips, tricks and advice from my previous experience of building e-commerce websites.

Watch on YouTube



I WILL DO HIGH QUALITY YouTube PACKAGE PROMOTION Services with Instantly Delivery for $2

I WILL DO HIGH QUALITY YouTube PACKAGE PROMOTION Services with Instantly Delivery

I will give you 200+ view 10 subscribers 10 like and 5 comments. Its 100% real.

But Don’t hesitate about my price And service. I will Give You custom order in your wish in Your budget. place an order for best service. contact me for more information.

Why me?

  • Instant start work.
  • Not use points, bots or any fake system.
  • Completed by right way.
  • Provide you best service.
  • Refill if drops though drop is rare.
  • 24/7 support.

REQUIREMENTS: Need only Y-T Video link not channel link

Select Extra if you need more engage with your video, select basic, standard and premium pack for the extra effect on your video.

Anything else, just ask. I am always available and ready to answer all of your questions
Contact us

If you want more subscribers or likes or comments then you can add extra.And if you have any questions then please give me message. click here

I am always at your service, so feel free to place your order now! If you need any clarifications, don’t hesitate to drop me a message.

Thank you in Advanced.


calculus and analysis – Why does this integral of a real, analytic, absolutely integrable function give a complex result?

I am using Mathematica to develop some “interesting” problems for students to solve using Fourier series.

The following computation seems as though it should yield a real result:

$B_n = int_0^1 exp(-9 x^2) cos(n pi x), dx~~ nin Integers,~nge 0$

When I code this in Mathematica, I find it returns a complex result, which does not seem plausible. Here is the code for the first term $(n=0)$ (which is simpler than the general case):

B(0) = Integrate(Exp(-9x^2), {x, 0, 1}, Assumptions -> {x (Element) Reals})

This returns $tfrac{1}{6}sqrt{pi} ,textrm{erf}{(3)}$, which is the correct answer.

However, when I compute the integral for the values of $n>0$, I find the following:

B(n_) = 2 Integrate(Exp(-9x^2) Cos(n Pi x), {x, 0, 1}, 
Assumptions -> {n (Element) Integers && n > 0 &&  x (Element) Reals})

$frac{1}{6} sqrt{pi } e^{-frac{1}{36} pi ^2 n^2} left(text{erf}left(3-frac{i pi n}{6}right)+text{erf}left(3+frac{i pi

This is a bit baffling. I see no reason that we should have wandered into the complex plane to compute this integral. Anyone have some perspective here?


real analysis – What is the space $D^{k,p}$, and why Sobolev’s embedding holds?

I am reading Struwe’s “Variational methods” and he sometimes uses the space $D^{k,p}(Omega)$, defined as the closure of $C^{infty}_0 (Omega)$ with respect to the norm given by:

$$||u||_{D^{k,p}}^p= sum_{|alpha|=k} ||D^{alpha} u||_p^p $$

The problem is that if $Omega=mathbb{R}^n$, for example, you don’t have Poincaré inequality and thus that should be a different space than $W^{k,p}(Omega)$ (and he uses a different name, indeed). The thing is that he uses embedding results known for Sobolev spaces with functions in $D^{k,p}$. If for instance you look at page 40 he says “By Sobolev’s embedding $D^{k,p} hookrightarrow L^q$ with $frac{1}{q}=frac{1}{p} – frac{k}{n}$“.

So, is there a simple reason for this embedding to hold? Also, do these spaces have a particular name? I couldn’t find anything

real analysis – Let ${x_n}$ be a sequence such that $lim_{n to infty} sup(x_n)=infty$. Then there is a sub sequence of ${x_n}$ that converges to $infty$.

Im not sure how to go about this. I think I am supposed to use the definition of limit superior, but I do not know how to incorporate this. I barely have anything useful, all I have is:

We will start by assuming ${x_n}$ is a sequence and $lim_{n to infty} sup(x_n)=infty$ and we will let $x_{pn}$ be any sub sequence of ${x_n}$.

Can anyone help me, please?

analysis – Can I use geometry to prove that the square root of 2 is real?

For high school students, it is a common exercise to prove that $sqrt2$ is irrational. They assume $sqrt2 = frac{p}{q}$ for some coprime $p$ and $q$, and derive a contradiction.

But being not rational doesn’t mean it’s irrational. It must be also proven that $sqrt2$ is real. Indeed, high school students are aware of imaginary numbers.

It is widely said that to prove $sqrt2$ is real, they must learn real analysis.

But can’t we just use geometry? I could argue the following:

By Pythagoras’ Law, $sqrt2 = sqrt{1^2+1^2}$ is the length of a diagonal of the unit square. Since a length is a positive real number, $sqrt2$ is real.

To think about it, it seems hard to build geometry from the standard axioms, namely ZFC. Does that mean the argument above is just a harder way of a proof?

python – Turn mannequin image to real human image

I have a task at hand, where i am getting a mannequin images which i have to convert into real images so that it can be uploaded on e-commerce.

Here is the sample image i want to convert this mannequin to real images which consist of real face and body.

I am Open for Ideas, i am struggling to think how to achieve this.
I am very well versed in Computer Vision and Deep learning.
Can anybody guide me to the way or method i could use to solve this.