|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
Threads older than 12 months may be archived by .
which "special cases" in proof?
The first sentence of the proof is confusing, and it is not clear which "special cases" it refers to, and which if any of them is the "first one". Perhaps it could be replaced with something like the following:
"The proof can be organized into steps, proving increasingly general special cases; the 4th step extends the result to the original formulation."
- The statement of the Theorem seems to be flawed. f is assumed to be a measurable function from R to C. But the proof deals with an interval [a,b]. Should we say f:[a,b] to C? or should the proof omit [a,b]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Proof seems to be a bit unclear
You have written:
How do you know that if f(x) is L1 function then its derivative is L1 function too? Consider:
Concluding: If you just write that you take into account only the situation where f(x) is differentiable and additionally f'(x) is L1 function too,then proof is more clear and universal.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Your lemma is false
- What is ? If it's a complex number, I think we're okay. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Article in "References" section (Self-promotion?)
The Researchgate article included in the references appears to have been added by User:Anilped. User:Anilped claims to be "Prof Anil Pedgaonkar", which also happens to be the alias of that article's author. I've made a brief skim of the article, and it seems inconsequential. But, then again, I've never had cause to use the lemma (yet). Maybe the article is of value, in a way I can't see. Can someone with a background in this area check that his generalizations are actually of sufficient novelty and power that we ought be directing readers there?
(If not, note that we should probably remove the last comment in "Other Versions" too.)