Search

The purpose of this note is to point out some difficulties which arise in connection with the stochastic calculus used in the previous paper and to suggest some ways in which these difficulties may be overcome. It turns out that if one wishes to restrict the application of the stochastic calculus to stochastic processes whose sample functions are step-functions with probability one, then difficulties of the following sort arise. Suppose X(ω, t) is a stochastic process whose sample functions are, with probability one, right-continuous step-functions in t on the interval [a, b). Then for every ω outside a null set N and every t ɛ [a, b), there is a δ(ω, t) such that < 5(w, t) implies X(ω, t + h) = X(ω, t) which in turn implies (X(ω, t + h) — X(ω, t))/h → 0 with probability one as Since convergence with probability one implies convergence in probability, it follows that the right-hand derivative of X(ω, t) in probability is zero at every t ɛ [a, b). Consequently, if the left-hand t ɛ [a, b), then it is also zero, but in general left-hand derivatives in probability on [a, b) may not even exist as finite-valued random functions. It is also worthwhile to observe that if a process is not differentiable in probability, then it is not differentiable in quadratic mean. From these observations it follows that the claims in Section 6 of the previous paper regarding the existence of non-zero derivatives in quadratic mean are in error, for if a derivative in quadratic mean exists, then it is a derivative in probability and is therefore zero. Incidentally, it turns out that the Poisson process has a zero derivative in probability but is not differentiable in quadratic mean. The fact that the Poisson process has a derivative in probability seems to depend rather crucially on the fact that it is also a process with independent increments.

The proof of Proposition 2 and that of Corollary to Proposition 3 in my previous paper “On the structure of complete local rings” are not correct Here we want to correct them.

Throughout, (X, ≤ ) denotes a partially ordered set (p. o. set), where X is assumed to be finite. A subset Y of X is called a k-union if Y contains no chain of length K + 1. In particular, therefore, a 1-union is just an antichain; and it is readily seen that Y is a k-union if and only if it is a union of K antichains. (Dually, a subset Z of X is a k-counion if Z contains no antichain of length k + 1.) We denote by dk (X) the maximum cardinality of a k-union in X, with a similar notation for other p. o. sets. Now let be any partition of X into chains, and write.

P. M. Cohn has given a characterization of pseudovaluation on a field in (1). There he defines the notion of an integral element over a multiplicatively closed set and states that the association of the set A to the set A* of all elements that are integral over it is a closure operator. There is an error in the statement that A* = (A*)*. In this note we show, by an example, that A* and (A*)* are not equal in general. We also give an example to show that even for the special type of sets that Cohn needs, namely the gauge sets, this property fails to hold. However, since the other conditions for a closure operator (A ⊆ A* and A ⊆ B implies A* ⊆ B*) are satisfied, one obtains a Kuratowski closure operator by iterating *. If we denote by Ā the closure of A by iterating * then theorem 10·3, its corollary and theorem 10·4 in (1) that have a bearing on this error, are valid as stated with the same proof replacing only K* by . Further theorem 13·3 is valid without modification since Cohn considers only a special class of pseudovaluations namely regular pseudo valuations for which K* = .

An elementary proof is given of a result obtained by concerning the sum of an infinite series involving a 4F3.

Recently Wang (5) has given some results concerning characterizations of Poisson, normal, gamma, binomial and negative binomial distributions. We shall show here that these results are incorrect and also attempt to rectify them.

Recently Mr. Seizô Itô kindly called the author’s attention to the fact that the derivation of (4.15) in the above referred paper is insufficient since the paper does not contain the proof of the compactness condition:(1) uniformaly in a and b

The objective of the paper Aczél and Ostrowski (1973) is to show in an elementary way that any real-valued function f, defined on (0,1) and satisfying he inquality , where n ≧ 3 is fixed, is necessary of the form .

SynopsisWe give a direct and simple proof of a central result of the above paper.

An associative locally finite algebra which is also an integral domain over an algebraically closed field is isomorphic to the ground field.

In [2], Tosiro Tsuzzuku gave a proof of the following:THEOREM. Let G be a doubly transitive permutation group of degree n, let K be any commutative ring with unit element and let p be the natural representation of G by n × n permutation matrices with elements 0, 1 in K. Then ρ is decomposable as a matrix representation over K if and only ifn is an invertible element of K.For G the symmetric group this result follows from Theorems (2.1) and (4.12) of [1]. The proof given by Tsuzuku is unsatisfactory, although it is perfectly valid when K is a field. The purpose of this note is to give a correct proof of the general case.

Let f(x) and F(x) be polynomials which are supposed to be decomposed into a series of n terms asFurther let θ be a distributive operation and φ(x) be a given function. Then the functional equationhas a solution of the formwhere yν (x) (ν = 1, 2, … n) is the solution of the equation

Since the above-named paper was published my attention has been called, by Mr A. F. Crossley, to the fact that a solution for Rutherford's ‘Case 1’ had been given by H. Jeffreys in his Operational methods in mathematical physics (Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics), p. 35. This solution is very neat and direct. As, however, the method depends on the use of inverse operational factors, such as where it is less elementary in character than that followed in my paper.

In a recent paper (1) Singh and Dhaliwal present an analysis which purports to solve a pair of dual integral equations which occur in crack theory and the object of this note is to demonstrate that their analysis is erroneous.

Some time ago, Dr I. B. S. Passi pointed out to me the connexion between the structure of the terms of the α-central series of a wreath product and that of polynomial groups which he had defined and studied. In discussing this problem with him, we looked closely at a paper (1) which I had written on nilpotent wreath products. In the process of this, I found a mistake in Theorem 3·7, the main result of (1). The results in (2) depend onthis theorem. Fortunately, it is possible to obtain a correct version of Theorem 3·7 and to modify the proof in (2) which depends on this theorem in such a way that all the results of (2) remain valid.

Professor Oystein Ore of Yale University has kindly called my attention to the close relation between my paper and some earlier researches of Dedekind. I should like to correlate, as far as possible, my results with his.

In this paper the laws of addition and subtraction of vectors were considered, and examples of their extreme usefulness in geometrical applications were given.

The author regrets that there are certain errors in [1] and would like to give the following corrections.

Tahara [1] has concretely determined the conjugate classes of finite subgroups of GL(3, Z). The group W5 in his list of groups of order 24 is in fact of order 12 and consists of the same matrices as the group W6 in his list of groups order 12. Hence, there are only 10 conjugate classes of subgroups of order 24 in GL(3, Z) and the total number of conjugate classes of finite subgroups is reduced to 73.