Search

I regret to announce that there is a serious error in my paper in these Transactions, volume 84, pp. 430-443. The error was discovered by Louis Kokoris who found that on line 8 of page 434 the expression given as 4[g(bz)](az) should have been 4[g(az)](bz). As a consequence the computation of P(z, g, az, b) yields nothing, the proof of formula (30) is not valid, and the important Lemma 9 is not proved. Thus the paper does not give a proof of its major result stated as Theorem 1. Nevertheless, the theorems of the paper are all correct and we shall provide a revision of the proof here. This revised proof has been checked by Louis Kokoris to whom the author wishes to express his great thanks. We observe first that the equation

The reading of Ayres' interesting paper suggested to me the following remarks: 1. The order of a subset of a set S in a point p4 cannot surpass the order of S in p. Hence if S2 denotes the set of all points of S of order 2, then S2 has in each point of S the order 2, the order 1, or the order 0, where the terms "order 0" and "0-dimensional" are used synonymously. SI(M), S2(1), S" may denote the set of all points of S in which S2 has the order 0, 1, 2, respectively. The points of order 2 of S are also called the ordinary points of S, and the set S2 of all ordinarv points of S may be called the ordinary part of S. The set S" of all ordinary points of the ordinary part of S may be designated the ordinary kernel of S. WVe have

The purpose of this note is to present a new proof of a generalized form of Day's fixed point theorem. The proof we give is suggested by the work of T. Mitchell in his paper, Function algebras, means, and fixed points, [2]. The version of Day's theorem which we present here has not appeared explicitly in the literature before, and seems especially well suited for application to questions concerning fixed point properties of topological semigroups. 1. Preliminaries. We adopt the terminology and notation of [2] except where otherwise specified. New terminology will be introduced as needed. Let y be a convex compactum (compact convex set in a real locally convex linear topological space E), and let A( Y) denote the Banach space of all (real) continuous affine functions on Y under the supremum norm. Observe that A(Y) contains every function of the form h=f\Y + r where fe E* and r is real; thus A(Y) separates points of Y.

The aim of this short note is to improve some recent results of B. Grunbaum by some remarks. We use Grunbaum's notations.

n/a

For every separable Banach spaceX there is a Banach spaceY with a separable dual such thatY ⊕X* ≈Y**. There is also a separable spaceZ so thatZ**/JZ is isomorphic toX.

Let H be a real or complex Hilbert space and let L p(1≦p

1. In a recent paper [2] Reich has made the observation that an example of Koebe given in 1918 [1] does not fulfill its asserted purpose. This example was to show that vanishing measure of the complement did not assure that a slit domain was minimal. Reich proceeded to fill the gap by carrying out the following somewhat more general construction. Let A be a compact perfect nowhere dense set on the x-axis in the z-plane (z=x+iy). Then there exists a compact set S in the z-plane with the properties: (i) A is the projection of S on the x-axis, (ii) S is composed of segments symmetric with respect to the x-axis and points on the x-axis, at least one segment being present, (iii) any point in S, not on the x-axis and not at the end of a segment in S, is the limit, both from the left and right, of points of S. Once this construction is performed the desired examples are easily given [2, ?4]. The object of the present paper is to give an alternative construction which is very explicit and direct.

In the paper of the title [1], a number of problems are posed. Ne­ gative solutions of two of them (Problems 2 and 3) are derived in a straightforward way from a paper of L. Gillman and the present author [2]. Motivation will not be supplied since it is given amply in [1], but enough definitions are given to keep the presentation reasonably self­ contained. 1. A Hausdorff space X is said to satisfy (Qm), where m is an in finite cardinal, if, whenever U and V are disjoint open subsets of X such that each is a union of the closures of less than m open subsets of X, then U and V have disjoint closures. In particular, a normal (Hausdorff) space X satisfies (Q*,) if and only if disjoint open F.-SUbsets of X have disjoint closures. (For, an open set that is the union of less than ~, closed sets is a fortiori an F.. Conversely if U is the union of countably many closed subsets Fo> then since X is normal, for each n there is an open set Un containing Fn whose closure is contained in U. Thus U is the union of the closures of the open sets Un.) In Prob­ lem 3 of [1], it is asked if every compact (HaUSdorff) space satisfying (Qm) for some m>~o is necessarily totally disconnected, and it is re­ marked that this is the case if the first axiom of countability is also as­ sumed. If X is a completely regular space, let C(X) denote the ring of all continuous real-valued functions on X, and let Z(f)= {x EX: f(x)=O}, let P(f)={xEX:f(x»O}, and let N(f)=P(-f). As usual, let (IX denote the Stone-Cech compactification of X. If every finitely generated ideal of C(X) is a principal ideal, then X is called an F-space. The fol­ lowing are equivalent. ( i) X is an F-space. ( ii) If f E C(X), then P(f) and NU) are completely separated [2, Theorem 2.3]. (iii) If f E C(X), then every bounded g E C(X-ZU» has an ex­ tension g E C(X) [2, Theorem 2.6]. A good supply of compact F-spaces is provided by the fact that if X is locally compact and ,,-compact, then {lX-X is an F-space [2, Theo­ rem 2.7].

near a point solution xi ai (i 1, 1 *, n) when certain conditions are satisfied. In the present paper these conditions are replaced by less stringent ones; the methods of proof of certain existence theorems are very similar to those employed in the first paper, and these proofs are given here in an abbreviated forin. In addition, the asymptotic properties of certain trajectories are discussed by an extension of the methods of Bohl. On account of the more complicated form of certain quadratic forms which occur here, it has been convenient to leave undetermined certain constants which are determined explicitly in the first paper; this procedure, together with the algebraic method of transforming the canonical equations, reduces to a small amount the results common to both papers.

It has been brought to my attention by Mr. N. E. Steenrod that the lemma of page 708 in the paper referred to is in error. The final assertion of the proof is false. It is therefore necessary to point out that the paper is not "disturbed" by this fault. For if one requires that the Pn, «= 1,2, • • •, of the lemma be arcs then the (altered) lemma does hold, since it is true that the connected sum of a perfect continuous curve and an arc is "perfect." One verifies that this restricted lemma is sufficient for the uses of the paper.

There is a mistake in each of [3] and [4]. The purpose of this note is to correct the error in [3] and to salvage what can be saved in [4]. In each case the notation will be that of the paper under discussion. Professor Homer Bechtell has kindly informed me of an error in the proof of the Theorem of [3] which occurs in the case MG1c G. The theorem is true however by altering the proof at this point. Assume that Mc: MG1=M1lc:G. M1 is an invariant subgroup of G, and since G1c: Soc(G), G1 is a direct sum of minimal invariant subgroups of G. By Clifford's theorem (p. 70 of [1]), each minimal invariant subgroup of G is either M1-central or M1-hypereccentric, and hence

The first part of the theorem of the above paper states that if ois a closed convex set in real X1 ... Xn-space which is invariant under permutations of coordinates, and if C(o-) denotes the set of real symmetric nXn matrices whose eigenvalues X1, X. form the coordinates of points in a, then C(o) is convex. I am obliged to Professor R. T. Rockafellar for pointing out that this statement is essentially contained in a theorem of Chandler Davis.2 The statement also follows from an earlier result of V. B. Lidskii,3 which was not known to me at the time of publication.

This gives the desired result. It might be pointed out that Theorem 4 shows that Ilfn-gn I-->O In ?4 it is tacitly assumed that the measurable set E can be partitioned into measurable sets E,,. This is always the case in separable spaces. To proceed without this assumption it will not be necessary to assume that J is metric. The class So(E) is defined as the class of functions finitely valued on E. Such a function is one for which there is a decomposition of E into a finite number of disjoint measurable subsets on each of which it is constant. This basis necessitates only a slight rewording in a few places. In Lemma 1 the set E should be taken as a set in A. In Theorem 2 the words "functions uniformly continuous" should be replaced by "functions finitely valued." In the proof of Theorem 11 the sentence "Fix . . . continuous on e" should be worded "Fix e with 18(E-e)