unless f(x0 ± δ) is some kind of funky shorthand for the set f(x) : x ∈ ℝ, . in that case, the definition would be “correct”.
it’s much more likely that it’s a typo, but analysts have been known to cook up some pretty bizarre notation from time to time, so it’s not totally out of the question.
that would be a lot clearer. i’ve just been burned in the past by notation in analysis.
my two most painful memories are:
in the (baby) rudin textbook, he uses f(x+) to denote the limit of _f _from the right, and f(x-) to denote the limit of f from the left.
in friedman analysis textbook, he writes the direct sum of vector spaces as M + N instead of using the standard notation M ⊕ N. to make matters worse, he uses M ⊕ N to mean M is orthogonal to N.
there’s the usual “null spaces” instead of “kernel” nonsense. ive also seen lots of analysis books use the → symbol to define functions when they really should have been using the ↦ symbol.
unless f(x0 ± δ) is some kind of funky shorthand for the set f(x) : x ∈ ℝ, . in that case, the definition would be “correct”.
it’s much more likely that it’s a typo, but analysts have been known to cook up some pretty bizarre notation from time to time, so it’s not totally out of the question.
There’s notation for that - (x0 - δ, x0 + δ), so you could say
f(x0 - δ, x0 + δ) ⊂ (L - ε, L + ε)
that would be a lot clearer. i’ve just been burned in the past by notation in analysis.
my two most painful memories are:
there’s the usual “null spaces” instead of “kernel” nonsense. ive also seen lots of analysis books use the → symbol to define functions when they really should have been using the ↦ symbol.
at this point, i wouldn’t put anything past them.
Egregious. I feel your pain.