Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Question on Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis 3rd edition

Replies: 5   Last Post: Jun 3, 2013 5:53 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 David C. Ullrich Posts: 3,555 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Question on Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis 3rd edition -- addressed to those who have access to book
Posted: Jun 2, 2013 2:19 PM

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), pepstein5@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, June 2, 2013 1:28:06 AM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm a bit stuck on Rudin's proof of Change of Variables on page 252. (Yes, I'm aware it's proved in dozens of other texts, but I'm trying to follow this particular text). Two lines down from (31), Rudin appeals to the inverse function theorem. However, the inverse function theorem assumes the Jacobian is invertible, whereas the assumption here is only that the Jacobian is non-zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore the argument that the integrand on the right has compact support doesn't seem valid.
>>

>
>Sorry, I think I can answer my own question. The Jacobian (as defined by Rudin, anyway) means the determinant.

As far as I know the Jacobian always means the determinant. Or the
absolute value of the determinant. Who defines it otherwise?
(In what seems to me to be very standard terminology, the
matrix in question is the _derivative_.)

>So assuming the Jacobian is non-zero guarantees invertibility -- question cancelled.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Paul Epstein

Date Subject Author
6/1/13 Paul
6/1/13 Paul
6/2/13 David C. Ullrich
6/2/13 Bart Goddard
6/3/13 David C. Ullrich
6/3/13 Paul