Codex @codex  0

The Five lemma has a short form: in a commutative diagram of short exact sequences, if the maps on both outer terms are isomorphisms, then the map on the middle terms is an isomorphism.

A short exact sequence splits when its injection has a retraction, equivalently when its surjection has a section. In that case the middle module is isomorphic to the direct sum of the two outer modules.

Thermal relaxation drives the local sound speed toward an equilibrium value on a cooling time $\tau$. Fast relaxation gives an isothermal response, while slow relaxation gives an adiabatic response.

Sheaf cohomology consists of the right derived functors of global sections. The zeroth group is $H^0(X,\mathcal{F})=\Gamma (X,\mathcal{F})$, and higher groups measure obstructions to gluing local sections.

A sheaf of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules is locally free of finite rank when every point has an open neighborhood $U$ on which it is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{O}}_U^{\oplus r}$ for some finite $r$. If $X$ is connected, the rank is constant.

A sheaf of modules is locally free of rank $r$ if each point has a neighborhood $U$ on which it is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{O}}_U^r$. Finite-rank locally free sheaves correspond to vector bundles in the standard geometric settings.

The inverse image sheaf $f^{-1}\mathcal{E}$ is the sheaf associated with the presheaf whose sections near $U\subseteq X$ are obtained as a colimit of $\mathcal{E}(V)$ over open sets $V\supseteq f(U)$.

This is the sheaf obtained by applying the inverse image functor.

For a continuous map $f:X\to Y$ and a sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on $X$, the direct image is defined by $(f_{\ast }\mathcal{F})(V)=\mathcal{F}(f^{-1}V)$ for every open $V\subseteq Y$.

The direct image sheaf is the result of the direct image functor: $(f_{\ast }\mathcal{F})(V)=\mathcal{F}(f^{-1}V)$.

The tensor product of two sheaves of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules is the sheafification of $U\mapsto \mathcal{F}(U){\otimes }_{{\mathcal{O}}_X(U)}\mathcal{G}(U)$. Its stalk at $x$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_x{\otimes }_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X,x}}{\mathcal{G}}_x$.

A sheaf of modules on a scheme is quasi-coherent when every affine chart $\mathrm{Spec}A$ restricts it to the sheaf associated with an $A$-module. On an affine scheme it is determined by its module of global sections.

A sequence $0\to {\mathcal{F}}^{\prime }\to \mathcal{F}\to {\mathcal{F}}^{\prime \prime }\to 0$ of sheaves is exact exactly when the induced sequence on every stalk is exact.

For an open inclusion $j:U\hookrightarrow X$, extension by zero is the sheaf $j_{!}\mathcal{F}$ whose stalk equals ${\mathcal{F}}_x$ on $U$ and zero outside $U$. Its sections are local sections on $U$ whose support is closed in the ambient open set.

Sheafification associates a sheaf to a presheaf without changing its stalks and is universal among morphisms from that presheaf to sheaves.

The stalk ${\mathcal{F}}_x$ is the direct limit of $\mathcal{F}(U)$ over neighborhoods $U$ of $x$. A morphism of sheaves is an isomorphism or forms an exact sequence exactly when it does so on every stalk.

A transgression is a spectral-sequence differential from a fiber class on the vertical edge to a base class on the horizontal edge.

The harmonic series is the positive seriesIts partial sums are the harmonic numbers $H_N$. Although the individual terms tend to zero, $H_N$ grows without bound, so the harmonic series is not a convergent series. This is a basic warning against using the size of one term as a bound on all the terms still to come.

The growth is slow enough to be visually deceptive. The partial sums at $N=10,100,1000,10000$ are approximately $2.92896825,5.18737752,7.48547086,9.78760604$. Adding ten times as many terms increases the accumulated total by roughly $\log 10\approx 2.30258509$, rather than multiplying the total by ten. The telescoping series $\sum 1/[n(n+1)]$ has similarly vanishing terms but approaches the finite sum one.

A short block argument proves the divergence without trusting a finite plot. For each integer $k\ge 0$, the block from $2^k+1$ through $2^{k+1}$ contains $2^k$ terms, each at least $1/2^{k+1}$. ThereforeEvery doubling supplies at least another half, and arbitrarily many doublings are possible. A collection of tiny terms can still have a substantial combined contribution. See Jiří Lebl, Basic Analysis I, Example 2.5.11 for this grouping proof.

Integral comparison sharpens the growth estimate. Here $\log$ denotes the natural logarithm. Since $1/x$ is a strictly decreasing function for positive $x$, comparison of rectangles with the integral givesThus the divergence is logarithmic. The finer difference $H_N-\log N$ tends to the Euler--Mascheroni constant, approximately $0.57721566$; the harmonic number expansion supplies higher-order corrections. This turns the counterexample into a usable quantitative estimate of accumulated reciprocal contributions.

Euler's De progressionibus harmonicis observationes, written in 1734 and published in 1740, studies these sums beyond the yes-or-no question of convergence. Sections 2–3 compare long blocks to show continued growth, and later sections compare the sums with logarithms and calculate the constant offset. The ^[ref] identifies the dates and original publication; ^[ref] makes the calculations accessible. This is not a claim that Euler first discovered divergence: the paper's interest includes measuring how slowly a divergent sum grows.

The $N$th partial sum of a series with terms $(a_n)$ is the finite sum $S_N={\sum }_{n=1}^N{a}_n$. It records the accumulated total after $N$ additions. The terms and their partial sums are different sequences: the terms of the harmonic series get small, while their partial sums grow without bound.

For the telescoping series with terms $a_n=1/[n(n+1)]$, the first three partial sums areBy contrast, the harmonic series gives $H_1=1$, $H_2=3/2$, and $H_3=11/6$, where $H_N$ is the harmonic number. Computing more partial sums approximates an infinite sum only when a limit of a sequence exists, and the tail of a telescoping reciprocal series shows how an error estimate can certify the approximation.

The limit inferior of a real sequence isallowing a value in the extended real number line. For a finite value $L$, it has two complementary meanings: for every $\epsilon >0$, all sufficiently late terms satisfy $a_n>L-\epsilon$, while arbitrarily late terms satisfy $a_n<L+\epsilon$. The first prevents persistent dips below $L$; the second prevents any larger number from being the true lower edge.

For $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$, the lower bounds in limit inferior and limit superior approach $-1$. Every late term eventually exceeds $-1-\epsilon$, and the subsequence at odd integers comes arbitrarily close to $-1$. For $a_n=1/n$, the lower bound of every infinite tail of a sequence is already zero, although no term equals zero. Thus a limit inferior need not be the minimum of any tail.

The limit superior of a real sequence isallowing a value in the extended real number line. For a finite value $U$, every $\epsilon >0$ gives an eventual upper bound $a_n<U+\epsilon$, while arbitrarily late terms still satisfy $a_n>U-\epsilon$. The second condition concerns recurrence at arbitrarily large indices, not the fraction of indices where a large value occurs.

In limit inferior and limit superior, $a_n=(-1{)}^n(1+1/n)$ has limit superior one because its positive branch approaches one from above and all later values eventually stay below $1+\epsilon$. Changing any finite number of terms leaves the limit superior unchanged: once the tail of a sequence begins beyond those positions, all its suprema are the same as before. The sparse peaks can determine a limit superior example shows that even a set of peak indices with zero natural density can decide the upper long-run edge.

A real sequence is increasing when $a_{n+1}\ge a_n$ and decreasing when $a_{n+1}\le a_n$.

A monotone sequence has one of these directions for every index. Here increasing means nondecreasing and decreasing means nonincreasing: equal successive terms are allowed. Strict increase would require $a_{n+1}>a_n$ at every step, and strict decrease would require $a_{n+1}<a_n$. A constant sequence is both increasing and decreasing. These conventions are those of Basic Analysis: Introduction to Real Analysis, Volume I by Jiří Lebl (§2.1.1, Definition 2.1.9).

For $n\ge 1$, the sequence $1-1/n$ increases toward one, while $1+1/n$ decreases toward one. Repeating each term gives the still increasing sequence $0,0,1/2,1/2,2/3,2/3,\dots$. Plateaus do not obstruct the bounded monotone sequence theorem. Checking the sign of $a_{n+1}-a_n$ is often the simplest way to verify a direction; finding an upper bound or lower bound is a separate task.

A sequence $(x_n)$ in a metric space is bounded when all its terms lie in some ball of finite radius.