Proof

All this is basic number theory, the idea being as follows:

(1) This is clear, because \( 1+…+1\neq0\) tells us that we have an embedding \( \mathbb N\subset F\) , and then by taking inverses with respect to \( +\) and \( \times\) we obtain \( \mathbb Q\subset F\) .

(2) Again, this is clear, because assuming \( 1+…+1=0\) , with \( p=ab\) terms, chosen minimal, we would have a formula as follows, which is a contradiction:

(3) This follows a bit as in (1), with the copy \( \mathbb F_p\subset F\) consisting by definition of the various sums of type \( 1+…+1\) , which must cycle modulo \( p\) , as shown by (2).

Proof

This is something very standard, the idea being as follows:

(1) In what regards \( \sqrt{2}\) , assuming that \( r=a/b\) with \( a,b\in\mathbb N\) prime to each other satisfies \( r^2=2\) , we have \( a^2=2b^2\) , and so \( a\in2\mathbb N\) . But then by using again \( a^2=2b^2\) we obtain \( b\in2\mathbb N\) as well, which contradicts our assumption \( (a,b)=1\) .

(2) Along the same lines, any prime number \( p\in\mathbb N\) has the property \( \sqrt{p}\notin\mathbb Q\) , with the proof here being as the above one for \( p=2\) , by congruence and contradiction.

(3) More generally, our claim is that any \( n\in\mathbb N\) which is not a square has the property \( \sqrt{n}\notin\mathbb Q\) . Indeed, we can argue here that our number decomposes as \( n=p_1^{a_1}… p_k^{a_k}\) , with \( p_1,…,p_k\) distinct primes, and our assumption that \( n\) is not a square tells us that one of the exponents \( a_1,…,a_k\in\mathbb N\) must be odd. Moreover, by extracting all the obvious squares from \( n\) , we can in fact assume \( a_1=…=a_k=1\) . But with this done, we can set \( p=p_1\) , and the congruence argument from (2) applies, and gives \( \sqrt{n}\notin\mathbb Q\) , as desired.

Proof

By using \( x\to-x\) , it is enough to prove that \( x^2=2\) has exactly one positive solution \( \sqrt{2}\) . But this is clear, because \( \sqrt{2}\) can only come from the following cut:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

We can write our equation in the following way:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This is something non-trivial, even for the rationals \( x\in\mathbb Q\) themselves, which require some work in order to be put in decimal form, the idea being as follows:

(1) First of all, our precise claim is that any \( x\in\mathbb R\) can be written in the form in the statement, with the integer \( \pm a_1… a_n\) and then each of the digits \( b_1,b_2,b_3,…\) providing the best approximation of \( x\) , at that stage of the approximation.

(2) Moreover, we have a second claim as well, namely that any expression of type \( x=\pm a_1… a_n.b_1b_2b_3……\) corresponds to a real number \( x\in\mathbb R\) , and that with the convention \( … b999…=…(b+1)000…\,\) , the correspondence is bijective.

(3) In order to prove now these two assertions, our first claim is that we can restrict the attention to the case \( x\in[0,1)\) , and with this meaning of course \( 0\leq x<1\) , with respect to the order relation for the reals discussed in the above.

(4) Getting started now, let \( x\in\mathbb R\) , coming from a cut \( \mathbb Q=A_x\sqcup B_x\) . Since the set \( A_x\cap\mathbb Z\) consists of integers, and is bounded from above by any element \( q\in B_x\) of your choice, this set has a maximal element, that we can denote \( [x]\) :

It follows from definitions that \( [x]\) has the usual properties of the integer part, namely:

Thus we have \( x=[x]+y\) with \( [x]\in\mathbb Z\) and \( y\in[0,1)\) , and getting back now to what we want to prove, namely (1,2) above, it is clear that it is enough to prove these assertions for the remainder \( y\in[0,1)\) . Thus, we have proved (3), and we can assume \( x\in[0,1)\) .

(5) So, assume \( x\in[0,1)\) . We are first looking for a best approximation from below of type \( 0.b_1\) , with \( b_1\in\{0,…,9\}\) , and it is clear that such an approximation exists, simply by comparing \( x\) with the numbers \( 0.0,0.1,…,0.9\) . Thus, we have our first digit \( b_1\) , and then we can construct the second digit \( b_2\) as well, by comparing \( x\) with the numbers \( 0.b_10,0.b_11,…,0.b_19\) . And so on, which finishes the proof of our claim (1).

(6) In order to prove now the remaining claim (2), let us restrict again the attention, as explained in (4), to the case \( x\in[0,1)\) . First, it is clear that any expression of type \( x=0.b_1b_2b_3…\) defines a real number \( x\in[0,1]\) , simply by declaring that the corresponding cut \( \mathbb Q=A_x\sqcup B_x\) comes from the following set, and its complement:

(7) Thus, we have our correspondence between real numbers as cuts, and real numbers as decimal expressions, and we are left with the question of investigating the bijectivity of this correspondence. But here, the only bug that happens is that numbers of type \( x=… b999…\) , which produce reals \( x\in\mathbb R\) via (6), do not come from reals \( x\in\mathbb R\) via (5). So, in order to finish our proof, we must investigate such numbers.

(8) So, consider an expression of type \( … b999…\) Going back to the construction in (6), we are led to the conclusion that we have the following equality:

Thus, at the level of the real numbers defined as cuts, we have:

But this solves our problem, because by identifying \( … b999…=…(b+1)000…\) the bijectivity issue of our correspondence is fixed, and we are done.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) Getting back to Definition 1.2, we know from there what the rational numbers are. But, as a continuation of the material there, we can talk about the distance between such rational numbers, as being given by the formula in the statement, namely:

(2) Very good, so let us get now into Cauchy sequences. We say that a sequence of rational numbers \( \{r_n\}\subset\mathbb Q\) is Cauchy when the following condition is satisfied:

Here of course \( \varepsilon\in\mathbb Q\) , because we do not know yet what the real numbers are.

(3) With this notion in hand, the idea will be to define the reals \( x\in\mathbb R\) as being the limits of the Cauchy sequences \( \{r_n\}\subset\mathbb Q\) . But since these limits are not known yet to exist to us, precisely because they are real, we must employ a trick. So, let us define instead the reals \( x\in\mathbb R\) as being the Cauchy sequences \( \{r_n\}\subset\mathbb Q\) themselves.

(4) The question is now, will this work. As a first observation, we have an inclusion \( \mathbb Q\subset\mathbb R\) , obtained by identifying each rational \( r\in\mathbb Q\) with the constant sequence \( r_n=r\) . Also, we can sum and multiply our real numbers in the obvious way, namely:

We can also talk about the order between such reals, as follows:

Finally, we can also solve equations of type \( x^2=2\) over our real numbers, say by using our previous work on the decimal writing, which shows in particular that \( \sqrt{2}\) can be approximated by rationals \( r_n\in\mathbb Q\) , by truncating the decimal writing.

(5) However, there is still a bug with our theory, because there are obviously more Cauchy sequences of rationals, than real numbers. In order to fix this, let us go back to the end of step (3) above, and make the following convention:

(6) But, with this convention made, we have our theory. Indeed, the considerations in (4) apply again, with this change, and we obtain an ordered field \( \mathbb R\) , containing \( \mathbb Q\) . Moreover, the equivalence with the Dedekind cuts is something which is easy to establish, and we will leave this as an instructive exercise, and this gives all the results.

Proof

This is something which looks quite intuitive, but which in practice, and we insist here, is not exactly beginner level, the idea with this being as follows:

(1) Let us first forget about the precise decimal writing in the statement, and define the real numbers \( x\in\mathbb R\) as being formal sums as follows, with the sum being over integers \( k\in\mathbb Z\) assumed to be greater than a certain integer, \( k\geq k_0\) :

(2) Now by truncating, we can see that what we have here are certain Cauchy sequences of rationals, and with a bit more work, we conclude that the \( \mathbb R\) that we constructed is precisely the \( \mathbb R\) that we constructed in Theorem 1.12. Thus, we get the result.

(3) Alternatively, by getting back to Theorem 1.11 and its proof, we can argue, based on that, that the \( \mathbb R\) that we constructed coincides with the old \( \mathbb R\) from Definition 1.8, the one constructed via Dedekind cuts, and this gives again all the assertions.

Proof

We have a field, with \( z^{-1}=(a-ib)/(a^2+b^2)\) , and regarding the rest:

(1) This is clear.

(2) Again, this is clear.

(3) Again, this is clear. Observe also that we have \( r^2=z\bar{z}\) , with \( \bar{z}=a-ib\) .

(4) We need here the formulae for the sines and cosines of sums, which are as follows, coming from some trigonometry, done the old way, with triangles in the plane:

Indeed, with these formulae in hand, we have the following computation, as desired:

(5) In order to prove \( e^{it}=\cos t+i\sin t\) , consider the following function \( f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C\) :

By using \( \sin'=\cos\) and \( \cos'=-\sin\) , coming from the formulae in (4), we have:

We conclude that \( f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb C\) is constant, equal to \( f(0)=1\) , as desired.

(6) This is clear from (5), with \( z=w^k\) , with \( w=e^{2\pi i/N}\) and \( k=0,1,…,N-1\) .

(7) This follows in the usual way, with \( \sqrt{re^{it}}=\pm\sqrt{r}e^{it/2}\) at the end, using (5).

Proof

The problem is that of proving that our polynomial has at least one root, because afterwards we can proceed by recurrence. We prove this by contradiction. So, assume that \( P\) has no roots, and pick a number \( z\in\mathbb C\) where \( |P|\) attains its minimum:

Since \( Q(t)=P(z+t)-P(z)\) is a polynomial which vanishes at \( t=0\) , this polynomial must be of the form \( ct^k\) + higher terms, with \( c\neq0\) , and with \( k\geq1\) being an integer. We obtain from this that, with \( t\in\mathbb C\) small, we have the following estimate:

Now let us write \( t=rw\) , with \( r>0\) small, and with \( |w|=1\) . Our estimate becomes:

Now recall that we have assumed \( P(z)\neq0\) . We can therefore choose \( w\in\mathbb T\) such that \( cw^k\) points in the opposite direction to that of \( P(z)\) , and we obtain in this way:

Now by choosing \( r>0\) small enough, as for the error in the first estimate to be small, and overcame by the negative quantity \( -|c|r^k\) , we obtain from this:

But this contradicts our definition of \( z\in\mathbb C\) , as a point where \( |P|\) attains its minimum. Thus \( P\) has a root, and by recurrence it has \( N\) roots, as stated.

Proof

There are several things going on here, as follows:

(1) The formula of \( \Delta\) comes the theory of the discriminant. If you know that, good, and if you don’t, no worries, because we will only need \( p^3+q^2>0\) , in what follows.

(2) With \( z\) as in the statement, by using \( (a+b)^3=a^3+b^3+3ab(a+b)\) , we have:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This is something quite tricky, the idea being as follows:

(1) To start with, let us write our equation in the following form:

Now assume that we have a number \( y\) satisfying the following equation:

With this magic number \( y\) in hand, our equation takes the following form:

(2) Which looks very good, leading us to the following degree 2 equations:

Now let us write these two degree 2 equations in standard form, as follows:

(3) Regarding the first equation, the solutions there are as follows:

As for the second equation, the solutions there are as follows:

(4) Now by cutting a \( \sqrt{2}\) factor from everything, this gives the formulae in the statement. As for the last claim, regarding the nature of \( y\) , this comes from Cardano.

Proof

The legend has it that this is what comes from Cardano, but depressing and normalizing and solving \( (y^2-3r)(y-3p)=2q^2\) makes it for too many operations, so the most pragmatic way is to simply check this equation. With \( y\) as above, we have:

With this in hand, we have the following computation:

Now by using the formula of \( t\) in the statement, this gives:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This is something quite tricky, the idea being as follows:

(1) Given a field \( F\) , assume that the roots of \( P\in F[X]\) can be computed by using iterated roots, a bit as for the degree 2 equation, or the degree 3 and 4 equations. Then, algebrically speaking, this gives rise to a tower of fields as folows, with \( F_0=F\) , and each \( F_{i+1}\) being obtained from \( F_i\) by adding a root, \( F_{i+1}=F_i(x_i)\) , with \( x_i^{n_i}\in F_i\) :

(2) In order for Galois theory to apply to this situation, we must make all the extensions normal, which amounts in replacing each \( F_{i+1}=F_i(x_i)\) by its extension \( K_i(x_i)\) , with \( K_i\) extending \( F_i\) by adding a \( n_i\) -th root of unity. Thus, with this replacement, we can assume that the tower in (1) in normal, meaning that all Galois groups are cyclic.

(3) Now by Galois theory, at the level of the corresponding Galois groups we obtain a tower of groups as follows as follows, which is a resolution of the last group \( G_k\) , the Galois group of \( P\) , in the sense of group theory, in the sense that all quotients are cyclic:

As a conclusion, Galois theory tells us that if the roots of a polynomial \( P\in F[X]\) can be computed by using iterated roots, then its Galois group \( G=G_k\) must be solvable.

(4) In the generic case, the conclusion is that Galois theory tells us that, in order for all polynomials of degree 5 to be solvable, via square roots, the group \( S_5\) , which appears there as Galois group, must be solvable, in the sense of group theory. But this is wrong, because the alternating subgroup \( A_5\subset S_5\) is simple, and therefore not solvable.

(5) Finally, regarding the polynomial \( P=X^5-X-1\) , some elementary computations here, based on arithmetic over \( \mathbb F_2,\mathbb F_3\) , and involving various cycles of length \( 2,3,5\) , show that its Galois group is \( S_5\) . Thus, we have our counterexample.

(6) Finally, let us mention that all this shows as well that a random polynomial of degree 5 or higher is not solvable by square roots, and with this being an elementary consequence of the main result from (4), via some standard analysis arguments.

Proof

This is standard, by drawing rectangles. We have indeed the following formula, which can stand as a definition for the signed area below the graph of \( f\) :

Thus, we are led to the formula in the statement.

Proof

As explained above, this is clear from definitions, via some geometric thinking. Alternatively, this is something which certainly comes from Theorem 1.21.

Proof

We recall from Theorem 1.21 that the idea is to use a formula as follows, with the points \( x_1,…,x_N\in[a,b]\) being uniformly distributed:

But this works as well when the points \( x_1,…,x_N\in[a,b]\) are randomly distributed, for somewhat obvious reasons, and this gives the result.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) To start with, given a random variable \( f:X\to\mathbb R\) , we can certainly talk about its law \( \mu\) , as being the formal linear combination of Dirac masses in the statement. Our claim is that this is a probability measure on \( \mathbb R\) , in the sense of Definition 2.1. Indeed, the weight of each point \( y\in\mathbb R\) is the following quantity, which is positive, as it should:

Moreover, the total mass of this measure is \( 1\) , as it should, due to:

Thus, we have indeed a probability measure on \( \mathbb R\) , in the sense of Definition 2.1.

(2) Still talking basics, let us record as well the following alternative formula for the law, which is clear from definitions, and that we will often use, in what follows:

(3) Now let us compute the moments of \( f\) . With the usual convention that each Dirac mass integrates up to \( 1\) , as mentioned in the statement, we have:

Thus, we are led to the conclusions in the statement.

Proof

This might look a bit scary, but is in fact a collection of trivialities, coming straight from definitions, the details being as follows:

(1) Nothing much to say here, with our assertion being plainly clear, just by comparing Definition 2.1 and Definition 2.9. As a interesting comment, however, in the general context of Definition 2.9, a probability measure \( \mu=\sum_{x\in X}\lambda_x\delta_x\) as there depends only on the following function, called density of our probability measure:

And, with this notion in hand, our equation \( P(x)=d\nu(x)\) simply says that the probability function \( P\) is the density of \( \nu\) . Which is something which is good to know.

(2) Pretty much the same story here, with our first assertion being clear, just by comparing Theorem 2.8 and Definition 2.9. As for the second assertion, consider more generally a probability space \( (X,\nu)\) , and a function \( f:X\to Y\) . We can then construct a probability measure \( \mu=f_*\nu\) on \( Y\) , called push-forward of \( \nu\) by \( f\) , as follows:

Alternatively, at the level of the corresponding measures of the parts \( Z\subset Y\) , we have the following abstract formula, which looks more conceptual:

In any case, one way or another we can talk about push-forward measures \( \mu=f_*\nu\) , and in the case of a random variable \( f:X\to\mathbb R\) , we obtain in this way the law of \( f\) .

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) When rolling the die \( k\) times, what will happen is that you will win \( w\) times and lose \( l\) times, with \( k=w+l\) . And in this situation, your profit will be, as stated:

(2) As for the probability for this to happen, this is the total number of possibilities for you to win \( w\) times, which is \( 5^{k-w}\binom{k}{w}\) , because this amounts in choosing the \( w\) times when you will win, among \( k\) , then multiplying by \( 5^{k-w}\) possibilities, at places where your partner wins, and finally dividing by the total number of possibilities, which is \( 6^k\) :

(3) As usual when doing complicated math, let us doublecheck all this, matter of being sure that we did not mess up our counting. First, the sum of all probabilities involved must be 1, and 1 that sum is, as shown by the following computation:

(4) Let us triplecheck this as well. Obviously, Rules 2.11 do not favor you, nor your partner, so on average, you should win 0. And this is the case indeed, because:

(5) This last computation was hot, wasn’t it, but in math, triplechecks are mandatory. In any case theorem proved, and the final conclusions in the statement are clear too.

Proof

As before, when rolling the die \( k\) times, you will win \( w\) times and lose \( l\) times, with \( k=w+l\) . And in this situation, your profit will be, as stated:

As for the rest, we already know all this from Theorem 2.12, but the point is that the proof of Theorem 2.12 becomes slightly simpler when using \( l\) instead of \( w\) .

Proof

Obviously, this is something a bit informal, but let us prove this as stated, and we will come back later to it, with precise definitions, general theorems and everything. In what regards the first assertion, nothing to be said there, this is what life teaches us. As for the second assertion, the formula \( \mu_{bin}=\mu_{ber}^{*k}\) there certainly looks like mathematics, so job for us to figure out what this exactly means. And, this can be done as follows:

(1) The first idea is to encapsulate the data from Definition 2.14 into the probability measures associated to the Bernoulli and binomial laws. For the Bernoulli law, the corresponding measure is as follows, with the \( \delta\) symbols standing for Dirac masses:

As for the binomial law, here the measure is as follows, constructed in a similar way, you get the point I hope, again with the \( \delta\) symbols standing for Dirac masses:

(2) Getting now to independence, the point is that, as we will soon discover abstractly, the mathematics there is that of the following formula, with \( *\) standing for the convolution operation for the real measures, which is given by \( \delta_x*\delta_y=\delta_{x+y}\) and linearity:

(3) To be more precise, this latter formula does hold indeed, as a straightforward application of the binomial formula, the formal proof being as follows:

(4) Summarizing, save for some uncertainties regarding what independence exactly means, mathematically speaking, and more on this in a moment, theorem proved.

Proof

We have indeed the following computation, using the independence of \( f,g\) :

As for the last assertion, this is clear too, because having the above computation work, for any \( k,l\in\mathbb N\) , amounts in saying that the independence formula for \( f,g\) holds.

Proof

We have indeed the following straightforward verification, based on the independence formula from Definition 2.16, and on Definition 2.18:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

Indeed, assume that the law of our variable is as follows:

The sequence of moments is then given by the following formula:

But it is then standard calculus to recover the numbers \( \lambda_i,x_i\in\mathbb R\) , and so the measure \( \mu\) , out of the sequence of numbers \( M_k\) . Indeed, assuming that the numbers \( x_i\) are \( 0<x_1<…<x_n\) for simplifying, in the \( k\to\infty\) limit we have the following formula:

Thus, we got the parameters \( \lambda_n,x_n\in\mathbb R\) of our measure \( \mu\) , and then by substracting them and doing an obvious recurrence, we get the other parameters \( \lambda_i,x_i\in\mathbb R\) as well. We will leave the details here as an instructive exercise, and come back to this problem later in this book, with more advanced and clever methods for dealing with it.

Proof

We have the following computation, using the independence of \( f,g\) :

On the other hand, we have as well the following computation:

Thus, job done, and theorem proved, or rather Theorem 2.19 reproved.

Proof

We have the following computation, using Theorem 2.19:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

We have two computations to be performed, as follows:

(1) Regarding the mean, this can be computed as follows:

(2) For the variance, we first compute the second moment, as follows:

Thus the variance is \( V=M_2-E^2=(t^2+t)-t^2=t\) , as claimed.

Proof

By using \( \delta_k*\delta_l=\delta_{k+l}\) and the binomial formula, we obtain:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

By using the binomial formula, the measure on the right is:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

We have indeed the following computation:

Thus, we obtain the formula in the statement.

Proof

Let us denote by \( \nu_n\) the measure under the convolution sign. We have the following computation, for the Fourier transform of the limit:

Thus, we obtain indeed the Fourier transform of \( p_t\) , as desired.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) Experiments first, before anything, let us compute a few Bell numbers. Obviously \( B_1=1\) , and then we have \( B_2=2\) , the partitions being as follows:

Next, we have \( B_3=5\) , the partitions at \( k=3\) being as follows:

At \( k=4\) now, things become more complex, and it is better to trick. We can count the partitions up to permutations of the corresponding diagrams, and with this convention made, here are the relevant partitions and their multiplicities, leading to \( B_4=15\) :

The same method works at \( k=5\) , with the block distributions and multiplicities, which are simpler to draw than partitions, being as follows, leading to \( B_5=52\) :

As for the case \( k=6\) , where \( B_6=203\) , we will leave this as an instructive exercise.

(2) Let us try now to find a recurrence for these Bell numbers. Since a partition of \( \{1,…,k+1\}\) appears by choosing \( s\) partners for \( 1\) , among the \( k\) numbers available, and then partitioning the \( k-s\) elements left, we have the following formula:

Observe that this formula forces us to talk about \( B_0=1\) , as done in the statement.

(3) As for the last assertion, regarding the non-computability of the Bell numbers, take this as a physics fact. Mankind has tried to find a formula for these numbers, had not found anything, and we are reporting here this finding, which is of course rock-solid.

Proof

The moments of \( p_1\) are given by the following formula:

We have the following recurrence formula for these moments:

Let us try now to find a recurrence for the Bell numbers:

A partition of \( \{1,…,k+1\}\) appears by choosing \( r\) neighbors for \( 1\) , among the \( k\) numbers available, and then partitioning the \( k-r\) elements left. Thus, we have:

Thus, the numbers \( M_k\) satisfy the same recurrence as the numbers \( B_k\) . Regarding now the initial values, for the moments of \( p_1\) , these are:

Indeed, the formula \( M_0=1\) is clear, and the formula \( M_1=1\) follows from:

Now by using the above recurrence we obtain from this:

Thus, we can say that the initial values for the moments are:

As for the Bell numbers, here the initial values are as follows:

Thus the initial values coincide, and so these numbers are equal, as stated.

Proof

Observe first that the formula in the statement generalizes the one in Theorem 2.31, because at \( t=1\) we obtain, as we should:

In general now, the moments of \( p_t\) with \( t>0\) are given by:

We have the following recurrence formula for the moments of \( p_t\) :

As for the initial values of these moments, we know from Proposition 2.24 and its proof that these are given by the following formulae:

On the other hand, consider the numbers in the statement, namely:

Since a partition of \( \{1,…,k+1\}\) appears by choosing \( r\) neighbors for \( 1\) , among the \( k\) numbers available, and then partitioning the \( k-r\) elements left, we have:

As for the initial values of these numbers, these are as follows:

Thus the initial values coincide, so these numbers are the moments, as stated.

Proof

This is just a reformulation of the group axioms, from Definition 3.1, in the abelian case, and then in general, in terms of Dirac masses, and with the group elements denoted \( x,y,z,…\,\) , and the unit denoted, as usual in the abelian case, by \( 0\) .

Proof

Here the equivalence between (1) and (2) is obvious. More complicated, however, is the question of finding the good philosophy and notation for this group. In what concerns us, we will use the notation (1), and often prefer the interpretation (2).

Proof

This is something quite tricky, the idea being as follows:

(1) In order to prove our result, assume that \( G\) is finite and abelian. For any prime number \( p\in\mathbb N\) , let us define \( G_p\subset G\) to be the subset of elements having as order a power of \( p\) . Equivalently, this subset \( G_p\subset G\) can be defined as follows:

(2) It is then routine to check, based on definitions, that each \( G_p\) is a subgroup. Our claim now is that we have a direct product decomposition as follows:

(3) Indeed, by using the fact that our group \( G\) is abelian, we have a morphism as follows, with the order of the factors when computing \( \prod_pg_p\) being irrelevant:

Moreover, it is routine to check that this morphism is both injective and surjective, via some simple manipulations, so we have our group decomposition, as in (2).

(4) Thus, we are left with proving that each component \( G_p\) decomposes as a product of cyclic groups, having as orders powers of \( p\) , as follows:

But this is something that can be checked by recurrence on \( |G_p|\) , via some routine computations, and we are led to the conclusion in the statement. See Lang [15].

Proof

This is clear indeed from the above discussion. As a comment, we can talk in fact about \( GL_N(F)\) and \( SL_N(F)\) , once we have a ground field \( F\) , but in what regards the corresponding orthogonal and unitary groups, things here are more complicated.

Proof

The fact that we have indeed groups is clear from definitions, and the non-abelianity of these groups is clear as well, provided of course that in each case \( N\) is chosen big enough, and with exercise for you to work out all this, with full details.

Proof

The above statement is of course something informal, and here are explanations on all this, including definitions for all the groups involved:

(1) To start with, \( S_N\) is the symmetric group \( S_N\) that we know, but regarded now as permutation group of the \( N\) coordinate axes of \( \mathbb R^N\) , and so as subgroup \( S_N\subset O_N\) .

(2) Similarly, \( A_N\) is the alternating group \( A_N\) that we know, but coming now geometrically, as \( A_N=S_N\cap SO_N\) , with the intersection being computed inside \( O_N\) .

(3) Regarding \( H_N\subset O_N\) , this is a famous group, called hyperoctahedral group, appearing as the symmetry group of the hypercube \( \square_N\subset\mathbb R^N\) .

(4) Regarding \( K_N\subset U_N\) , this is the complex analogue of \( H_N\) , consisting of the unitary matrices \( U\in U_N\) having exactly one nonzero entry, on each row and each column.

(5) We have as well on our diagram the groups \( SH_N,SK_N\) , with \( S\) standing as usual for “special”, that is, consisting of the matrices in \( H_N,K_N\) having determinant 1.

(6) In what regards now the diagram itself, sure I can see that \( S_N,A_N\) appear twice, but nothing can be done here, after thinking a bit, at how the diagram works.

(7) Let us mention too that the groups \( \mathbb Z_N,D_N\) have their place here, in \( N\) -dimensional geometry, but not exactly on our diagram, as being the symmetry groups of the oriented cycle, and unoriented cycle, with vertices at the simplex \( X_N=\{e_i\}\subset\mathbb R^N\) .

(8) Finally, in what regards finiteness, non-abelianity, and also the name “complex reflection groups”, many things to be checked here, left to you as an exercise.

Proof

This is quite clear, by thinking a bit, as follows:

(1) In order to count \( (\cup_iA_i)^c\) , we certainly have to start with \( |A|\) .

(2) Then, we obviously have to remove each \( |A_i|\) , and so remove \( \sum_i|A_i|\) .

(3) But then, we have to put back each \( |A_i\cap A_j|\) , and so put back \( \sum_{i<j}|A_i\cap A_j|\) .

(4) Then, we must remove each \( |A_i\cap A_j\cap A_k|\) , so remove \( \sum_{i<j<k}|A_i\cap A_j\cap A_k|\) .

\( \vdots\)

(5) And so on, which leads to the formula in the statement.

Proof

Many things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) In order to prove the first assertion, which is the key, and probably the most puzzling one, we will use the inclusion-exclusion principle. Let us set:

The set of permutations having no fixed points, called derangements, is then:

Now the inclusion-exclusion principle tells us that we have:

Thus, the probability that we are interested in, for a random permutation \( \sigma\in S_N\) to have no fixed points, is given by the following formula:

Since on the right we have the expansion of \( 1/e\) , this gives the result.

(2) Let us construct now the main character of \( S_N\) , as in the statement. The permutation matrices being given by \( \sigma_{ij}=\delta_{i\sigma(j)}\) , we have the following formula:

In order to establish now the asymptotic result in the statement, regarding these characters, we must prove the following formula, for any \( r\in\mathbb N\) , in the \( N\to\infty\) limit:

We already know, from (1), that this formula holds at \( r=0\) . In the general case now, we have to count the permutations \( \sigma\in S_N\) having exactly \( r\) points. Now since having such a permutation amounts in choosing \( r\) points among \( 1,…,N\) , and then permuting the \( N-r\) points left, without fixed points allowed, we have:

By dividing everything by \( N!\) , we obtain from this the following formula:

Now by using the computation at \( r=0\) , that we already have, from (1), it follows that with \( N\to\infty\) we have the following estimate:

Thus, we obtain as limiting measure the Poisson law of parameter 1, as stated.

(3) Finally, let us construct the truncated characters of \( S_N\) , as in the statement. As before in the case \( t=1\) , we have the following computation, coming from definitions:

Also before in the proofs of (1) and (2), we obtain by inclusion-exclusion that:

Now with \( N\to\infty\) , we obtain from this the following estimate:

More generally, by counting the permutations \( \sigma\in S_N\) having exactly \( r\) fixed points among \( 1,…,[tN]\) , as in the proof of (2), we obtain:

Thus, we obtain in the limit a Poisson law of parameter \( t\) , as stated.

Proof

The first assertion follows from the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, because the standard coordinates \( g_{ij}\) separate the points of \( S_N\) , and so we have:

Regarding now the second assertion, according to the definition of the matrix coordinates \( g_{ij}\) , the integrals in the statement are given by:

Now observe that the existence of \( \sigma\in S_N\) as above requires \( i_m=i_n\iff j_m=j_n\) . Thus, the above integral vanishes when the following condition is satisfied:

Regarding now the case \( \ker i=\ker j\) , if we denote by \( b\in\{1,…,k\}\) the number of blocks of this partition \( \ker i=\ker j\) , we have \( N-b\) points to be sent bijectively to \( N-b\) points, and so \( (N-b)!\) solutions, and the integral is \( \frac{(N-b)!}{N!}\) , as claimed.

Proof

We already know this, from Theorem 3.12, but we can use as well the integration formula in Proposition 3.13. Indeed, with \( S_{kb}\) being the Stirling numbers, counting the partitions of \( \{1,…,k\}\) having exactly \( b\) blocks, we have the following formula:

In particular with \( N\to\infty\) we obtain the following formula:

But this is the \( k\) -th moment of the Poisson law \( p_t\) , and so we are done.

Proof

We have the following moment formula, where \( m_f\) is the number of permutations of \( \{1,… ,N\}\) having exactly \( f\) fixed points in the set \( \{1,… ,s\}\) :

Thus the law in the statement, say \( \nu_{sN}\) , is the following average of Dirac masses:

Now observe that the permutations contributing to \( m_f\) are obtained by choosing \( f\) points in the set \( \{1,… ,s\}\) , then by permuting the remaining \( N-f\) points in \( \{1,… ,n\}\) in such a way that there is no fixed point in \( \{1,…,s\}\) . But these latter permutations are counted as follows: we start with all permutations, we substract those having one fixed point, we add those having two fixed points, and so on. We obtain in this way:

We can proceed as follows, by using the new index \( p=f+k\) :

Here \( *\) is convolution of real measures, and the assertion follows.

Proof

We can use indeed the formula in Theorem 3.15, as follows:

(1) With \( s\) fixed and \( N\to\infty\) we have the following estimate:

But the law on the right is that of a projection of trace \( s/N\) , as desired.

(2) We have a law formula of the following type:

The coefficients \( c_p\) can be estimated by using the Stirling formula, as follows:

We can now compute the Fourier transform with respect to a variable \( y\) :

But this being the Fourier transform of \( p_t\) , this gives the second assertion.

Proof

Let \( \eta_n\) be the measure in Definition 3.17, under the convolution sign:

We have then the following computation:

Thus, we have obtained the formula in the statement.

Proof

Let \( \alpha\) be the sum of Poisson variables in the statement, namely:

By using our standard Fourier transform formulae, we have:

Thus we have indeed the same formula as in Proposition 3.18, as desired.

Proof

We know from Theorem 3.19 that \( b^s_t\) appears as follows, with \( a_1,…,a_s\) being independent, each of them following the Poisson law of parameter \( t/s\) , and \( w=e^{2\pi i/s}\) :

We have the following computation, for the corresponding Fourier transform:

Thus, we are led to the conclusions in the statement.

Proof

The Fourier transform of the measure on the right is given by:

We multiply now by \( e^t\) , and we compute the derivative with respect to \( t\) :

By using the variable \( u=r-1\) , we obtain from this the following formula:

But this gives \( \log F=t(\exp_sz-1)\) , as in Theorem 3.21, as desired.

Proof

This is routine algebra, or perhaps geometry, as follows:

(1) This is indeed clear from definitions.

(2) Each of the permutations \( \sigma\in S_N\) of the \( N\) coordinate axes of \( \mathbb R^N\) can be further “decorated” by a sign vector \( \varepsilon\in\{\pm1\}^N\) , consisting of the possible \( \pm1\) flips which can be applied to each coordinate axis, at the arrival. In matrix terms, this gives the result.

(3) We have indeed, using (2), the formula \( |H_N| =|S_N|\cdot|\mathbb Z_2^N| =N!\cdot2^N\) .

(4) We know from (3) that at the level of cardinalities we have \( |H_N|=|S_N\times\mathbb Z_2^N|\) , and with a bit more work, we obtain that we have \( H_N=S_N\rtimes\mathbb Z_2^N\) , as claimed.

(5) This is simply a reformulation of (4), in terms of wreath products.

Proof

We regard \( H_N\) as being the symmetry group of the graph \( I_N=\{I^1,… ,I^N\}\) formed by \( n\) segments. The diagonal coefficients are then given by:

Let us denote by \( F_g,R_g\) the number of segments among \( \{I^1,… ,I^s\}\) which are fixed, respectively returned by an element \( g\in H_N\) . With this notation, we have:

We denote by \( P_N\) probabilities computed over \( H_N\) . The density of the law of the variable \( u_{11}+…+u_{ss}\) at a point \( r\geq 0\) is then given by the following formula:

Thus, the asymptotic density can be computed as follows:

Together with \( D(-r)=D(r)\) , this gives the formula in the statement. As for the last assertion, this follows from the Fourier transform formula found above.

Proof

This is something quite technical, the idea being as follows:

(1) At \( s=1\) the reflection group is \( H_N^1=S_N\) , the Bessel law is the Poisson law, \( b_t^1=p_t\) , and the formula \( \chi_t\sim p_t\) with \( N\to\infty\) is something that we know. As for the moment formula, where \( P^1=P\) , this is something that we know too.

(2) At \( s=2\) the reflection group is \( H_N^2=H_N\) , the Bessel law is \( b_t^2=b_t\) , and the formula \( \chi_t\sim b_t\) with \( N\to\infty\) is something that we know. As for the moment formula, where \( P^2=P_{even}\) , this is something more technical, which can be established too.

(3) At \( s=\infty\) the reflection group is \( H_N^\infty=K_N\) , the Bessel law is \( b_t^\infty=B_t\) , and the formula \( \chi_t\sim B_t\) with \( N\to\infty\) is something that can be proved as for \( S_N,H_N\) . As for the moment formula, where \( P^\infty=\mathcal P_{even}\) , this can be established too.

(4) In the general case, \( s\in\mathbb N\cup\{\infty\}\) , the formula \( \chi_t\sim b_t^s\) with \( N\to\infty\) can be established like for \( S_N,H_N\) , and the moment formula is something more technical. For details on all this, and for the whole story, you can have a look at my book [16].

Proof

We know from Definition 3.27 that the cumulants are given by:

By exponentiating, we obtain from this the following formula:

Now by looking at the terms of order \( 1,2,3,4\) , this gives the above formulae.

Proof

Here (1) and (2) are both clear from definitions, because we have:

As for (3), this follows from the fact that the Fourier transform \( F_f(\xi)=E(e^{i\xi f})\) satisfies the following formula, whenever \( f,g\) are independent random variables:

Indeed, by applying the logarithm, we obtain the following formula:

With the change of variables \( \xi\to-i\xi\) , we obtain the following formula:

Thus, at the level of coefficients, we obtain \( k_n(f+g)=k_n(f)+k_n(g)\) , as claimed.

Proof

We can assume, by using a continuity argument, that our measure \( \nu\) is discrete, as follows, with \( t_i>0\) and \( z_i\in\mathbb R\) , and with the sum being finite:

By using now the Fourier transform formula for \( p_\nu\) , we obtain:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

Consider the adjacency matrix of \( P\) , given by the following formula:

Our claim is that the inverse of this matrix is the M
specialChar{34}obius matrix of \( P\) , given by:

Indeed, the above matrix \( A\) is upper triangular, and when trying to invert it, we are led to the recurrence in Definition 3.31, so to the M
specialChar{34}obius matrix \( M\) . Thus we have:

Thus, in practice, we are led to the inversion formula in the statement.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) According to our conventions above, the first set of formulae is equivalent to the second set of formulae. Also, due to the Möbius inversion formula, in the second set of formulae, the two formulae there are in fact equivalent. Thus, the 4 formulae in the statement are all equivalent. In what follows we will focus on the first 2 formulae.

(2) Let us first work out some examples. At \( n=1,2,3\) the moment formula gives the following equalities, which are in tune with the findings from Proposition 3.28:

At \( n=4\) now, which is a case which is of particular interest for certain considerations to follow, the computation is as follows, again in tune with Proposition 3.28:

As for the cumulant formula, at \( n=1,2,3\) this gives the following formulae for the cumulants, again in tune with the findings from Proposition 3.28:

Finally, at \( n=4\) , after computing the M
specialChar{34}obius function of \( P(4)\) , we obtain the following formula for the fourth cumulant, again in tune with Proposition 3.28:

(3) Time now to get to work, and prove the result. As mentioned above, the formulae in the statement are all equivalent, and it is enough to prove the first one, namely:

In order to do this, we use the very definition of the cumulants, namely:

By exponentiating, we obtain from this the following formula:

(4) Let us first compute the function on the left. This is easily done, as follows:

(5) Regarding now the function on the right, this is given by:

But the point now is that all this leads us into partitions. Indeed, we are summing over indices \( s_1,…,s_p\in\mathbb N\) , which can be thought of as corresponding to a partition of \( n=s_1+…+s_p\) . So, let us rewrite our sum, as a sum over partitions. For this purpose, recall that the number of partitions \( \nu\in P(n)\) having blocks of sizes \( s_1,…,s_p\) is:

Also, when resumming over partitions, there will be a \( p!\) factor as well, coming from the permutations of \( s_1,…,s_p\) . Thus, our sum can be rewritten as follows:

(6) We are now in position to conclude. According to (3,4,5), we have:

Thus, we have the following formula, valid for any \( n\in\mathbb N\) :

We are therefore led to the conclusions in the statement.

Proof

The idea here is to look at the moments of \( S\) . Since all variables \( f_i\) are centered, \( E(f_i)=0\) , so is their sum, \( E(S)=0\) , and no contradiction here. However, when looking at the variance of \( S\) , which equals the second moment, due to \( E(S)=0\) , things become interesting, due to the following computation:

Thus, we are in need a normalization factor \( \alpha\) , in order for our sum to have a chance to converge. But, repeating the computation with \( S\) replaced by \( \alpha S\) gives:

Thus, the good normalization factor is \( \alpha=1/\sqrt{n}\) , as claimed.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) Observe first that in terms of moments, the Fourier transform of an arbitrary random variable \( f:X\to\mathbb R\) is given by the following formula:

(2) In particular, in the case of a centered variable, \( E(f)=0\) , as those that we are interested in, the Fourier transform formula that we get is as follows:

Moreover, by further assuming that the Fourier variable is small, \( x\simeq0\) , the Fourier transform formula that we get, that we will use in what follows, becomes:

(3) In addition to this, we will also need to know what happens to the Fourier transform when rescaling. But the formula here is very easy to find, as follows:

(4) Good news, we can now do our computation. By using the above formulae in (2) and (3), the Fourier transform of the variable in the statement is given by:

(3) We are therefore led to the conclusion in the statement, modulo the fact that we do not know yet that a density \( g_t\) having as Fourier transform \( F(x)=e^{-tx^2/2}\) really exists, plus perhaps some other abstract issues, related to the continuous measures, to be discussed too. But too late to go back, both cat and sailors are happy, we will go ahead. So, theorem proved, modulo finding that law \( g_t\) , which still remains to be done.

Proof

Again, several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) To start with, at the level of formalism and notations, in view of Question 4.1 and of Theorem 4.5, we have adopted the term “normal” for the mysterious law \( g_t\) that we are looking for, the one having \( F(x)=e^{-tx^2/2}\) as Fourier transform.

(2) Getting towards the computation of the moments, as a first useful observation, according to Theorem 4.5 this normal law \( g_t\) must be centered, as shown by:

Moreover, the same argument works by replacing “centered” with “having an even function as density”, and this shows, via some standard calculus, that we will leave here as an exercise, that the odd moments of our normal law must vanish:

Thus, first assertion proved, and we only have to care about the even moments.

(3) As a comment here, as we will see in a moment, our study below of the moments computes in fact the odd moments too, as being all equal to 0, this time without making reference to Theorem 4.5. Thus, definitely no worries with the odd moments.

(4) Getting to work now, we must reformulate the equation \( F(x)=e^{-tx^2/2}\) , in terms of moments. We know from the proof of Theorem 4.5 that we have:

On the other hand, we have the following formula, for the exponential:

Thus, our equation \( F(x)=e^{-tx^2/2}\) takes the following form:

(5) As a first observation, the odd moments must vanish, as said in (2) above. As for the even moments, these can be computed as follows:

Thus, we are led to the formula in the statement.

Proof

This is a reformulation of Theorem 4.6, the idea being as follows:

(1) We know from Theorem 4.6 that the moments of the normal law \( M_k=M_k(g_t)\) that we are interested in are given by the following formula, with the convention \( k!!=0\) for \( k\) odd, and \( k!!=(k-1)(k-3)(k-5)…\) for \( k\) even, for the double factorials:

Now observe that, according to our above convention for the double factorials, these are subject to the following recurrence relation, with initial data \( 1!!=0,2!!=1\) :

We conclude that the moments of the normal law \( M_k=M_k(g_t)\) are subject to the following recurrence relation, with initial data \( M_1=0,M_2=t\) :

(2) On the other hand, let us first count the pairings of the set \( \{1,…,k\}\) . In order to have such a pairing, we must pair \( 1\) with one of the numbers \( 2,…,k\) , and then use a pairing of the remaining \( k-2\) numbers. Thus, we have the following recurrence formula for the number \( P_k\) of such pairings, with the initial data \( P_1=0,P_2=1\) :

Now by multiplying by \( t^{k/2}\) , the resulting numbers \( N_k=t^{k/2}P_k\) will be subject to the following recurrence relation, with initial data \( N_1=0,N_2=t\) :

(3) Thus, the moments \( M_k=M_k(g_t)\) and the numbers \( N_k=t^{k/2}P_k\) are subject to the same recurrence relation, with the same initial data, so they are equal, as claimed.

Proof

This is a quick reformulation of Theorem 4.7, with the number of blocks of a pairing of \( \{1,…,k\}\) being trivially \( k/2\) , independently of the pairing.

Proof

We have two assertions here, the idea being as follows:

(1) For the normal law \( g_t\) we have the following computation:

But the plain coefficients of this series are the numbers \( 0,t/2,0,0,…\,\) , and so the Taylor coefficients of this series are the numbers \( 0,t,0,0,…\,\) , as claimed.

(2) As for the last assertion, regarding the semigroup property of the normal laws, this actually follows from Theorem 4.5, the log of the Fourier transform being linear in \( t\) , but is best seen by looking at the cumulants, which are obviously linear in \( t\) .

(3) However, as a technical remark here, the linearization results for the convolution that we have, be them in terms of the Fourier transform, or of the cumulants, were formally established in chapters 2-3 only for the discrete measures. So, instead of further thinking at all this, let us pull out a third, elementary proof for \( g_s*g_t=g_{s+t}\) .

(4) In order to do this, consider, as in Theorem 4.5, on one hand i.i.d. centered variables \( f_1,f_2,f_3,…\) having variance \( s>0\) , and on the other hand i.i.d. centered variables \( h_1,h_2,h_3,…\) having variance \( t>0\) . According to Theorem 4.5, we have:

Now let us sum these formulae. Assuming that the variables \( f_1,f_2,f_3,…\) that we used were independent from the variables \( h_1,h_2,h_3,…\) , we obtain in this way:

On the other hand, yet another application of Theorem 4.5, with the remark that by independence, the variance of \( f_i+h_i\) is indeed \( s+t\) , gives the following formula:

Thus, we are led to the semigroup formula \( g_s*g_t=g_{s+t}\) , as desired.

Proof

This comes from partial integration, as follows:

(1) Let us first do a naive computation. Consider the following quantities:

It is quite obvious that by partial integration we will get a recurrence formula for these numbers, similar to the one that we have for the moments of the normal laws. So, let us do this. By partial integration we obtain the following formula, for any \( k\in\mathbb N\) :

(2) Thus, we are on the good way, with the recurrence formula that we got being the same as that for the moments of \( g_{1/2}\) . Now let us fine-tune this, as to reach to the same recurrence as for the moments of \( g_t\) . Consider the following quantities:

By partial integration as before, we obtain the following formula:

(3) Thus, almost done, and it remains to discuss normalization. We know from the above that we must have a formula as follows, with \( I_t\) being a certain constant:

But the constant \( I_t\) must be the one making \( g_t\) of mass 1, and so:

Thus, we are led to the formula in the statement.

Proof

As already mentioned, this is something which is nearly impossible to prove, with bare hands. However, this can be proved by using two dimensions, as follows:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This follows indeed from our various results above, and more specifically from Theorem 4.5, Theorem 4.6 for the terminology, Theorem 4.11 and Theorem 4.13.

Proof

We already know this, but we can establish this as well directly, starting from our formula of \( g_t\) from Theorem 4.14. Indeed, the first moment is 0, because our normal law \( g_t\) is centered. As for the second moment, this can be computed as follows:

We conclude from this that the variance is \( V=M_2=t\) , as claimed.

Proof

Again, we already know this, but we can establish this as well directly, starting from our formula above of \( g_t\) . Indeed, we have the following computation:

Thus by recurrence, we are led to the formula in the statement.

Proof

As before, we already know this, but we can establish now the Fourier transform formula as well directly, by using the explicit formula of \( g_t\) , as follows:

As for the last assertion, this follows from the fact that \( \log F_{g_t}\) is linear in \( t\) .

Proof

We already know that the first assertion holds, as explained in the above. As for the second assertion, this follows by carefully examining the above computation. Indeed, we have used only at one point the independence of \( g,h\) , so for the formula \( \mu_f=\mu_g*i\mu_h\) to hold, the equality used at that point, which is as follows, must hold:

But this is the same as saying that the following must hold, for any \( x,y\) :

We conclude that, in order for the decomposition formula \( \mu_f=\mu_g*i\mu_h\) to hold, the real and imaginary parts \( g,h:X\to\mathbb R\) must be independent, as stated.

Proof

This follows indeed from the real CLT, established in Theorem 4.14, simply by taking the real and imaginary parts of all the variables involved.

Proof

This follows indeed from the real result, namely \( g_s*g_t=g_{s+t}\) , established in Theorem 4.9, simply by taking real and imaginary parts.

Proof

This follows indeed from our previous CCLT result, from Theorem 4.21, by dividing everything by \( \sqrt{2}\) , as explained in the above.

Proof

We must compute the moments, with respect to colored integer exponents \( k=\circ\bullet\bullet\circ…\) as above, of the variable from Definition 4.22, namely:

We can assume that we are in the case \( t=1\) , and the proof here goes as follows:

(1) As a first observation, in the case where our exponent \( k=\circ\bullet\bullet\circ…\) is not uniform, a standard rotation argument shows that the corresponding moment of \( f\) vanishes. To be more precise, the variable \( f'=wf\) is complex Gaussian too, for any complex number \( w\in\mathbb T\) , and from \( M_k(f)=M_k(f')\) we obtain \( M_k(f)=0\) , in this case.

(2) In the uniform case now, where the exponent \( k=\circ\bullet\bullet\circ…\) consists of \( p\) copies of \( \circ\) and \( p\) copies of \( \bullet\)  , the corresponding moment can be computed as follows:

(3) In order to finish now the computation, let us recall that we have the following formula, coming from the generalized binomial formula, or from the Taylor formula:

By taking the square of this series, we obtain the following formula:

Now by looking at the coefficient of \( t^p\) on both sides, we conclude that the sum on the right equals \( 4^p\) . Thus, we can finish the moment computation in (2), as follows:

We are therefore led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This follows indeed from Theorem 4.27, or simply from the computation (2) in the above proof, at \( t=1\) , and then by rescaling by \( t\) , in general.

Proof

This follows indeed from our previous Central Limiting result, namely the CCLT from Theorem 4.24, by taking absolute values on both sides.

Proof

This is a reformulation of Theorem 4.27. Indeed, we can assume that we are in the case \( t=1\) , and here we know from Theorem 4.27 that the moments are:

On the other hand, the numbers \( |\mathcal P_2(k)|\) are given by exactly the same formula. Indeed, in order to have a matching pairing of \( k\) , our exponent \( k=\circ\bullet\bullet\circ…\) must be uniform, consisting of \( p\) copies of \( \circ\) and \( p\) copies of \( \bullet\) , with \( p=|k|/2\) . But then the matching pairings of \( k\) correspond to the permutations of the \( \bullet\) symbols, as to be matched with \( \circ\) symbols, and so we have \( p!\) such pairings. Thus, we have the same formula as for the moments of \( f\) , and we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

This is something well-known, which can be proved as follows:

(1) Let us first discuss the case where we have a single variable \( f\) , which amounts in taking \( f_i=f\) for any \( i\) in the formula in the statement. What we have to compute here are the moments of \( f\) , with respect to colored integer exponents \( k=\circ\bullet\bullet\circ…\,\) , and the formula in the statement tells us that these moments must be:

But this is the formula in Theorem 4.30, so we are done with this case.

(2) In general now, when expanding the product \( f_{i_1}^{k_1}… f_{i_s}^{k_s}\) and rearranging the terms, we are left with doing a number of computations as in (1), and then making the product of the expectations that we found. But this amounts in counting the partitions in the statement, with the condition \( \pi\leq\ker i\) there standing for the fact that we are doing the various type (1) computations independently, and then making the product.

Proof

This follows from the usual Wick formula, from Theorem 4.31. With some changes in the indices and notations, the formula there reads:

Now observe that we have \( \mathcal P_2(K)=\emptyset\) , unless the colored integer \( K=K_1… K_s\) is uniform, in the sense that it contains the same number of \( \circ\) and \( \bullet\) symbols. Up to permutations, the non-trivial case, where the moment is non-vanishing, is the case where the colored integer \( K=K_1… K_s\) is of the following special form:

So, let us focus on this case, which is the non-trivial one. Here we have \( s=2k\) , and we can write the multi-index \( I=I_1… I_s\) in the following way:

With these changes made, the above usual Wick formula reads:

The point now is that the matching pairings \( \sigma\in\mathcal P_2(K)\) , with \( K=\circ…\circ\bullet…\bullet\,\) , of length \( 2k\) , as above, correspond to the permutations \( \pi\in S_k\) , in the obvious way. With this identification made, the above modified usual Wick formula becomes:

Thus, we have reached to the formula in the statement, and we are done.

Proof

This follows from our second Wick formula, from Theorem 4.32, simply by permuting the terms, as to have an alternating sequence of plain and conjugate variables. Alternatively, we can start with Theorem 4.31, and then perform the same manipulations as in the proof of Theorem 4.32, but with the exponent being this time as follows:

Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.

Proof

There are several things going on here, the idea being as follows:

(1) First of all, the axioms from Definition 5.4 are trivially satisfied, and with the main axiom, namely the triangle inequality, basically coming from:

(2) At the level of examples, at \( |X|=1\) we obtain a point, at \( |X|=2\) we obtain a segment, at \( |X|=3\) we obtain an equilateral triangle, at \( |X|=4\) we obtain a regular tetrahedron, and so on. Thus, what we have in general, at \( |X|=N\) , is the arbitrary dimensional generalization of this series of geometric objects, called \( N\) -simplex.

(3) In what regards now the geometric generalization of the \( N\) -simplex, our above examples, namely segment, triangle, tetrahedron and so on, suggest to look for an embedding \( X\subset\mathbb R^{N-1}\) . Which is something which is certainly possible, but the computations here are quite complicated, involving a lot of trigonometry, as you can check yourself by studying the problem at \( N=4\) , that is, parametrizing the regular tetrahedron in \( \mathbb R^3\) .

(4) However, mathematics, or perhaps physics come to the rescue, via the idea “add a dimension, for getting smarter”. Indeed, when looking for an embedding \( X\subset\mathbb R^N\) things drastically simplify, because we can simply take \( X\) to be the standard basis of \( \mathbb R^N\) :

Indeed, we have by definition \( d(e_i,e_j)=1\) for any \( i\neq j\) . So, we have solved our embedding problem, just like that, without doing any computations or trigonometry.

Proof

All this is very standard, and we will leave this as an exercise, namely carefully checking what you learned in basic calculus, in relation with limits and continuity, in the cases \( X=\mathbb R,\mathbb C\) , and working out the metric space extensions of this.

Proof

This might sound like a joke, but it is not one, because this is the kind of thing that we have to check. Fortunately, all this is elementary, as follows:

(1) Given an open ball \( B_x(r)\) and a point \( y\in B_x(r)\) , by using the triangle inequality we have \( B_y(r')\subset B_x(r)\) , with \( r'=r-d(x,y)\) . Thus, \( B_x(r)\) is indeed open.

(2) Given a closed ball \( \bar{B}_x(r)\) and a point \( y\in B_x(r)^c\) , by using the triangle inequality we have \( B_y(r')\subset B_x(r)^c\) , with \( r'=d(x,y)-r\) . Thus, \( \bar{B}_x(r)\) is indeed closed.

Proof

We can prove this by double implication, as follows:

\( (1)\implies(2)\) Assume by contradiction \( x_n\to x,x_n\in F\) with \( x\notin F\) . Since we have \( x\in F^c\) , which is open, we can pick a ball \( B_x(r)\subset F^c\) . But this contradicts our convergence assumption \( x_n\to x\) , so we are done with this implication.

\( (2)\implies(1)\) Assume by contradiction that \( F\) is not closed in our sense, meaning that \( F^c\) is not open. Thus, we can find \( x\in F^c\) such that there is no ball \( B_x(r)\subset F^c\) . But with \( r=1/n\) this provides us with a point \( x_n\in B_x(1/n)\cap F\) , and since we have \( x_n\to x\) , this contradicts our assumption (2). Thus, we are done with this implication too.

Proof

We have several things to be proved, the idea being as follows:

(1) This is clear from definitions, because any point \( x\in\cup_iU_i\) must satisfy \( x\in U_i\) for some \( i\) , and so has a ball around it belonging to \( U_i\) , and so to \( \cup_iU_i\) .

(2) This follows from (1), by using the following well-known set theory formula:

(3) Given an arbitrary point \( x\in\cap_iU_i\) , we have \( x\in U_i\) for any \( i\) , and so we have a ball \( B_x(r_i)\subset U_i\) for any \( i\) . Now with this in hand, let us set:

As a first observation, this is a ball around \( x\) , \( B=B_x(r)\) , of radius given by:

But this ball belongs to all the \( U_i\) , and so belongs to their intersection \( \cap_iU_i\) . We conclude that the intersection \( \cap_iU_i\) is open, as desired.

(4) This follows from (3), by using the following well-known set theory formula:

(5) Finally, in what regards the counterexamples at the end, these can be both found on \( \mathbb R\) , and we will leave this as an instructive exercise.

Proof

We have several things to be proved, the idea being as follows:

(1) Let us first prove that the interior \( E^\circ\) is open. For this purpose, pick \( x\in E^\circ\) . We know that we have a ball \( B_x(r)\subset E\) , and since this ball is open, it follows that we have \( B_x(r)\subset E^\circ\) . Thus, the interior \( E^\circ\) is open, as claimed.

(2) Let us prove now that the closure \( \bar{E}\) is closed. For this purpose, we will prove that the complement \( \bar{E}^c\) is open. So, pick \( x\in\bar{E}^c\) . Then \( x\) cannot appear as a limit of a sequence \( x_n\to x\) with \( x_n\in E\) , so we have a ball \( B_x(r)\subset \bar{E}^c\) , as desired.

(3) Finally, the maximality and minimality assertions regarding \( E^\circ\) and \( \bar{E}\) are both routine too, coming from definitions, and we will leave them as exercises.

Proof

Here the first part, regarding the modeling of \( X\) , that we will actually not need here, is something that we already know. Regarding now the second part:

(1) \( X\) being the total space, it is closed. In fact, since the points of \( X\) are open, any subset \( E\subset X\) is open, and by taking complements, any set \( E\subset X\) is closed as well.

(2) \( X\) is also bounded, because all distances are smaller than \( 1\) .

(3) However, our set \( X\) is not compact, because its points being open, as noted above, \( X=\cup_{x\in X}\{x\}\) is an open cover, having no finite subcover.

Proof

These assertions are all clear from definitions, as follows:

(1) Assume that \( K\subset X\) is compact, and let us prove that \( K\) is closed. For this purpose, we will prove that \( K^c\) is open. So, pick \( p\in K^c\) . For any \( q\in K\) we set \( r=d(p,q)/3\) , and we consider the following balls, separating \( p\) and \( q\) :

We have then \( K\subset\cup_{q\in K}V_q\) , so we can pick a finite subcover, as follows:

With this done, consider the following intersection:

This intersection is then a ball around \( p\) , and since this ball avoids \( V_{q_1},…,V_{q_n}\) , it avoids the whole \( K\) . Thus, we have proved that \( K^c\) is open at \( p\) , as desired.

(2) Assume that \( F\subset K\) is closed, with \( K\subset X\) being compact. For proving our result, we can assume, by replacing \( X\) with \( K\) , that we have \( X=K\) . In order to prove now that \( F\) is compact, consider an open cover of it, as follows:

By adding the set \( F^c\) , which is open, to this cover, we obtain a cover of \( K\) . Now since \( K\) is compact, we can extract from this a finite subcover \( \Omega\) , and there are two cases:

– If \( F^c\in\Omega\) , by removing \( F^c\) from \( \Omega\) we obtain a finite cover of \( F\) , as desired.

– If \( F^c\notin\Omega\) , we are done too, because in this case \( \Omega\) is a finite cover of \( F\) .

(3) This follows from (1) and (2), because if \( K\subset X\) is compact, and \( F\subset X\) is closed, then \( K\cap F\subset K\) is closed inside a compact, so it is compact.

Proof

Again, these are elementary results, which can be proved as follows:

(1) Assume by contradiction \( \cap_iK_i=\emptyset\) , and let us pick \( K_1\in\{K_i\}\) . Since any \( x\in K_1\) is not in \( \cap_iK_i\) , there is an index \( i\) such that \( x\in K_i^c\) , and we conclude that we have:

But this can be regarded as being an open cover of \( K_1\) , that we know to be compact, so we can extract from it a finite subcover, as follows:

But this contradicts our non-empty intersection assumption, and we are done.

(2) This is a particular case of (1), proved above.

(3) We prove this by contradiction. So, assume that \( E\) has no limit point in \( K\) . This means that any \( p\in K\) can be isolated from the rest of \( E\) by a certain open ball \( V_p=B_p(r)\) , and in both the cases that can appear, \( p\in E\) or \( p\notin E\) , we have:

Now observe that these sets \( V_p\) form an open cover of \( K\) , and so of \( E\) . But due to \( |V_p\cap E|=0,1\) and to \( |E|=\infty\) , this open cover of \( E\) has no finite subcover. Thus the same cover, regarded now as cover of \( K\) , has no finite subcover either, contradiction.

(4) This follows from (3) that we just proved, with \( E=\{x_n\}\) .

(5) This is a reformulation of (4), that we just proved.

Proof

This is something quite tricky, the idea being as follows:

\( (1)\implies(2)\) As a first task, let us prove that any product of closed intervals is indeed compact. We can assume by linearity that we are dealing with the unit cube:

In order to prove that \( C_1\) is compact, we proceed by contradiction. So, assume that we have an open cover as follows, having no finite subcover:

Now let us cut \( C_1\) into \( 2^N\) small cubes, in the obvious way, over the \( N\) coordinate axes. Then at least one of these small cubes, which are all covered by \( \cup_iU_i\) too, has no finite subcover. So, let us call \( C_2\subset C_1\) one of these small cubes, having no finite subcover:

We can then cut \( C_2\) into \( 2^N\) small cubes, and by the same reasoning, we obtain a smaller cube \( C_3\subset C_2\) having no finite subcover. And so on by recurrence, and we end up with a decreasing sequence of cubes, as follows, having no finite subcover:

Now since these decreasing cubes have edge size \( 1,1/2,1/4,…\,\) , their intersection must be a point. So, let us call \( p\) this point, defined by the following formula:

But this point \( p\) must be covered by \( \cup_iU_i\) , so we can find an index \( i\) such that \( p\in U_i\) . Now observe that \( U_i\) must contain a whole ball around \( p\) , and so starting from a certain \( K\in\mathbb N\) , all the cubes \( C_k\) will be contained in this ball, and so in \( U_i\) :

But this is a contradiction, because \( C_K\) , and in fact the smaller cubes \( C_k\) with \( k>K\) as well, were assumed to have no finite subcover. Thus, we proved our claim. But with this claim in hand, the result is now clear. Indeed, assuming that \( K\subset\mathbb R^N\) is closed and bounded, we can view it as a subset as a suitable big cube, of the following form:

But, what we have here is a closed subset inside a compact set, which by Proposition 5.16 follows to be compact, as desired.

\( (2)\implies(3)\) This is something that we already know, not needing \( K\subset\mathbb R^N\) .

\( (3)\implies(1)\) We have to prove that \( K\) as in the statement is both closed and bounded, and we can do both these things by contradiction, as follows:

– Assume first that \( K\) is not closed. But this means that we can find a point \( x\notin K\) which is a limiting point of \( K\) . Now let us pick \( x_n\in K\) , with \( x_n\to x\) , and consider the set \( E=\{x_n\}\) . According to our assumption, \( E\) must have a limiting point in \( K\) . But this limiting point can only be \( x\) , which is not in \( K\) , contradiction.

– Assume now that \( K\) is not bounded. But this means that we can find points \( x_n\in K\) satisfying \( ||x_n||\to\infty\) , and if we consider the set \( E=\{x_n\}\) , then again this set must have a limiting point in \( K\) , which is impossible, so we have our contradiction, as desired.

Proof

This is something fundamental, which can be proved as follows:

(1) This is clear from the definition of continuity, written with \( \varepsilon,\delta\) . In fact, the converse holds too, in the sense that if \( f^{-1}({\rm {open}})={\rm open}\) , then \( f\) must be continuous.

(2) This follows from (1), by taking complements. And again, the converse holds too, in the sense that if \( f^{-1}({\rm {closed}})={\rm closed}\) , then \( f\) must be continuous.

(3) Indeed, given an open cover \( f(K)\subset\cup_iU_i\) , we have an open cover \( K\subset\cup_if^{-1}(U_i)\) , and so by compactness of \( K\) , a finite subcover \( K\subset f^{-1}(U_{i_1})\cup…\cup f^{-1}(U_{i_n})\) , and so finally a finite subcover \( f(K)\subset U_{i_1}\cup…\cup U_{i_n}\) , as desired.

(4) This can be proved via the same trick as for (3). Indeed, any separation of \( f(E)\) into two parts can be returned via \( f^{-1}\) into a separation of \( E\) into two parts, contradiction.

Proof

This can be viewed in two possible ways, as follows:

(1) According to the axioms in Definition 5.21, what we have to do in order to construct \( M=\bar{S}\) is to start with \( S\) , then add \( \emptyset,X\) to it, along with the complements \( E^c\) of all the sets \( E\in S\) , and then take countable unions and intersections of such sets. And, some elementary verifications show that what we get in this way is indeed an algebra.

(2) Alternatively, we can define \( M=\bar{S}\) as being the intersection of all algebras containing \( S\) , and with the remark that we have at least one such algebra, namely \( P(X)\) itself. It is then clear from definitions that \( M\) is an algebra, as desired.

Proof

This is something very standard, the idea being as follows:

(1) This is clear from definitions, because we have:

(2) By using (1), it is enough to check that the function \( k(x)=(f(x),g(x))\) is measurable. But this follows by writing any open set \( U\subset\mathbb R^2\) as a union of rectangles. Indeed, the preminage of each rectangle \( R=I\times J\) is measurable, as shown by:

But then, with this in hand, since any open set \( U\subset\mathbb R^2\) can be written as a union of rectangles, it follows that \( k^{-1}(U)\) is measurable, as desired.

(3) This follows indeed by using (2), with the following functions:

(4) In the real case, \( f,g:X\to\mathbb R\) , the result follows by using (2), with:

Then, the result can be extended to the complex case, \( f,g:X\to\mathbb C\) , by using (3).

Proof

Consider the following set, which is easily seen to be an algebra:

We want to prove that \( \Omega\) contains all the open sets, and this can be done as follows:

(1) Pick \( a\in\mathbb R\) , and then pick an increasing sequence \( a_n\to a\) . We have then the following formula, which shows that we have \( [-\infty,a)\in\Omega\) :

(2) But with this in hand, we obtain, for any \( a<b\) , that we have:

(3) Now since any open set \( U\subset[-\infty,\infty]\) can be written as a union of open intervals, we conclude that we have \( U\in\Omega\) , as desired.

Proof

This is again something very standard, the idea being as follows:

(1) For the function \( g=\sup_nf_n\) we can use the measurability criterion from Proposition 5.29, along with the following fact, valid for any \( a\in\mathbb R\) :

By symmetry we obtain that the function \( k=\inf_nf_n\) is measurable as well. But with these results in hand, the last assertion follows too, by using the following formula:

(2) Here the fact that \( k=\inf_nf_n\) is measurable was already proved in the above, and for \( l=\liminf_nf_n\) we can use the same argument, symmetry, or the following formula:

(3) This follows indeed from (1), or from (2), and from the following fact:

(4) This is a trivial application of (1) and (2).

(5) This follows from (4), and from the fact that if \( f\) is measurable, so is \( -f\) .

Proof

As a first observation, the converse holds too, thanks to the results in Proposition 5.30. Regarding now the proof, this goes as follows:

(1) First, it is clear by drawing a picture that we can approximate the identity of \( [0,\infty]\) with step functions as in the statement. That is, we can obviously find an increasing sequence of measurable step functions \( 0\leq\psi_1\leq\psi_2\leq…\leq id\) , satisfying:

(2) Now let us set \( \varphi_n=\psi_n\circ f\) . According to the limiting formula above, we have:

On the other hand, by using the measurability criterion from Proposition 5.29, it follows that our truncation functions \( \varphi_n=\psi_n\circ f\) are measurable, as desired.

Proof

This is something very standard, and we will leave the clarification of all this, both precise statement, and proof, as an instructive exercise. To be more precise:

(1) We can certainly integrate the step functions \( \varphi:X\to\mathbb R_+\) , by writing each such function as a linear combination of characteristic functions, as follows:

Indeed, with this formula in hand, we can integrate our function \( \varphi\) , as follows:

The integral of step functions constructed in this way has then all the linearity and positivity properties that you might expect, and behaves well with respect to limits.

(2) Next, consider an arbitrary measurable function \( f:X\to[0,\infty]\) . We know from Theorem 5.31 that we can write this function as an increasing limit, as follows, with \( 0\leq\varphi_1\leq\varphi_2\leq…\leq f\) , and with each \( \varphi_i\) being a measurable step function:

But this suggests to define the integral of \( f\) by the formula in the statement, namely:

Indeed, we can see that the integral constructed in this way has all the linearity and positivity properties that you might expect, and behaves well with respect to limits.

Proof

All this is indeed very standard, all routine verifications.

Proof

This follows indeed from what we already know from Theorem 5.32, and from the above discussion, exactly as for the Riemann integral.

Proof

This is indeed something very standard, the idea being as follows:

(1) We first have the following obvious implication, showing that the sequence of integrals on the right converges, to a certain number in \( [0,\infty]\) :

Moreover, since we have \( f_n\to f\) , it follows that we have the following inequality:

(2) In order to prove now the reverse inequality, pick a measurable simple function \( 0\leq\varphi\leq f\) , pick also a number \( c\in(0,1)\) , and consider the following sets:

These sets are then measurable, we have \( E_1\subset E_2\subset…\) , and our claim is that:

Indeed, given \( x\in X\) , if \( f(x)=0\) then \( x\in E_1\) and things fine. Otherwise, we have \( f(x)>0\) , and so \( f(x)>c\varphi(x)\) , since \( c<1\) , and so \( x\in E_n\) for some \( n\) , as desired.

(3) Now observe that, with \( 0\leq\varphi\leq f\) and \( c\in(0,1)\) as above, we have:

By taking the limit of this estimate, with \( n\to\infty\) , we obtain:

Now with \( c\to1\) , we obtain from this the following estimate:

But this being true for any simple function \( 0\leq\varphi\leq f\) , we conclude that we have:

Thus we have the reverse of the estimate found in (1), which finishes the proof.

Proof

This follows indeed from Theorem 5.35, applied to the partial sums.