28
$\begingroup$

I bought the fourth edition of Royden Real Analysis, this book is awesome and it's quite different from the third edition, which has less exercises.

I have the solution manual for the third edition. Is there a solution manual for the fourth edition?

I always like doing the exercises by myself, but it is very important for me to be able to verify that they are correctly solved.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Did you purchase a third edition or did you just hunt one down online? If so, it would be appreciated - I have studied from that text, but I have been unable to find a solutions manual myself. $\endgroup$ Nov 8, 2016 at 4:01
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The fourth edition is not by Royden, it is by Royden and Fitzpatrick. $\endgroup$ Oct 21, 2018 at 9:19

2 Answers 2

23
$\begingroup$

This book is such a gem! As a hobby, I've been writing up solutions to the exercises in my free time. You can download them from my website. I've only managed to make it through Chapter 8 though.

I hope you find these useful - my only request is to please let me know if you find any errors :-)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ thank you very much, it is not going to be useful for me after that many years, but surely someone will find very useful your answer :) $\endgroup$ Sep 28, 2020 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ I’m not sure this is a mistake but maybe something I would like more info about. In section 2.3 problem 15 on page 38 you use countable additivity but this property is not proven until section 2.5. I don’t think your proof is wrong, but I’m inclined to think that there is an alternative that only uses countable sub-additivity. $\endgroup$
    – ToucanIan
    Jan 30, 2022 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ @ToucanIan Thanks for the feedback! I updated the solution to that exercise. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 6, 2022 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ In section 2.4 problem 18 you appear to make the assumption that E is measurable. In my version of the text E is simply stated to have a finite measure but is not said to be measurable. $\endgroup$
    – ToucanIan
    Feb 7, 2022 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah I agree the language a little ambiguous. I believe "finite measure" implies the set is measurable, in contrast with the term "finite outer measure" (e.g. exercise 14). It doesn't make much sense to say a set's measure is finite if the set is not measurable. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 8, 2022 at 15:06
0
$\begingroup$

Here is a solutions manual through Section 14.4 of the 2018 reissue of the fourth edition: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09ZCYSB8Z.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .