Talk:Cauchy principal value

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Priority
 Field:  Analysis



Notation[edit]

I would rewrite the article, using notation


In the current version, the "definitions" are a little but fussy. dima (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would only use this notation if you think it is worth introducing to readers who have never seen it before. The notation is not common, from what I can tell.Njerseyguy (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in "Formulation"[edit]

"In the case of Lebesgue-integrable functions, that is, functions which are integrable in absolute value, these definitions coincide with the standard definition of the integral."

I don´t understand the intened meaning of this sentence, since Lebesgue-integrable functions ≠ functions which are integrable in absolute value. The class of Lebesgue-integrable functions is broader than that.--79.235.151.134 (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost the only?[edit]

"It is the inverse distribution of function x and is almost the only distribution with this property" What does this mean? 78.91.83.39 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

I think the requirement that the lateral limits exist as extended reals is not necessary. Considere the example:

We see that

which implies the lateral limit does not exist. Nonetheless, I would say that

where I have used that f is odd so that

By the way, I see no problem in saying that

.

Do you agree with me? Lechatjaune (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)