Sergei Yakovenko's blog: on Math and Teaching

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Analgebraic geometry: talk, minicourse and survey paper

Analgebraic Geometry


It so happened that at the beginning of 2016 I gave a talk on the conference “Geometric aspects of modern dynamics” in Porto, delivered a minicourse at Journées Louis Antoine in Rennes and wrote an expository paper for the European Mathematical Society Newsletter, all devoted to the same subject. The subject, provisionally dubbed as “Analgebraic geometry”, deals with algebraic-like properties (especially from the point of view of intersection theory) of real and complex analytic varieties defined by ordinary and Pfaffian differential equations with polynomial right hand sides. Thus

analgebraic = un-algebraic + analytic + algebraic (background) + weak algebraicity-like properties.

It turns out that this analgebraic geometry has very intimate connections with classical problems like Hilbert 16th problem, properties of periods of algebraic varieties, analytic number theory and arithmetic geometry.

For more details see the presentation prepared for the minicourse (or the shorter version of the talk) and the draft of the paper.

Any remarks and comments will be highly appreciated.

P.S. Video records (in French) are available from this page.

Advertisements

Monday, February 1, 2016

Finally, exam!

Filed under: lecture,Rothschild course "Analysis for high school teachers" — Sergei Yakovenko @ 3:41
Tags:

Exam

The exam is posted online on Feb 1, 2016, and must be submitted on the last day of the exams’ period, February 26. Its goals are, besides testing your acquired skills in the Analysis, to teach you a few extra things and see your ability for logical reasoning, not your proficiency in performing long computations. If you find yourself involved in heavy computations, better double check whether you understand the formulation of the problem correctly. Remember, small details sometimes matter!

Please provide argumentation, better in the form of logical formulas, not forgetting explicit or implicit quantifiers \forall and \exists. They really may change the meaning of what you write!

Problems are often subdivided into items. The order of these items is not accidental, try to solve them from the first till the last, and not in a random order (solution of one item may be a building block for the next one).

To get the maximal grade, it is not necessary to solve all problems, but it is imperative not to write stupid things. Please don’t try to shoot in the air.

The English version is the authoritative source, but if somebody translates it into Hebrew (for the sake of the rest of you) and send me the translation, I will post it for your convenience, but responsibility will be largely with the translator.

If you believe you found an error or crucial omission in the formulation of a problem, please write me. If this will be indeed the case (errare humanum est), the problem will be either edited (in case of minor omissions) or cancelled (on my account).

That’s all, folks!© Good luck to everybody!

Yes, and feel free to leave your questions/talkbacks here, whether addressed to Michal/Boaz/me or to yourself, if you feel you want to ask a relevant question.


Corrections


Correction 1

The formulation of Problem 1 was indeed incorrect. The set A' was intended to be the set of accumulation points for a set A\subseteq [0,1]. The formal definition is as follows.

Definition. A point p\in [0,1] belongs to to the set of limit points A' if and only if \forall\varepsilon>0 the intersection (p-\varepsilon,p+\varepsilon)\cap A is infinite. The point p itself may be or may be not in A.

Isolated points of A are never in A', but A' may contain points p\notin A.

Apologies for the hasty formulation.


Correction 2: Problem 3(b) cancelled!

The statement requested to prove in Problem 3(b) is wrong, and I am impressed how fast did you discover that. Actually, the problem was taken from the textbook by Zorich, vol. 1, where it appears on p. 169, sec. 4.2.3, as Problem 4.

The assertion about existence of the common fixed point of two commuting continuous functions f,g\colon [0,1]\to[0,1] becomes true if we require these functions to be continuously differentiable on [0,1] (in particular, for polynomials), but the proof of this fact is too difficult to be suggested as a problem for the exam.

Thus Problem 3(b) is cancelled.

Blog at WordPress.com.