Experience Seamless Full Ebook Downloads for Every Genre at textbookfull.

com

Mathematical Analysis and the Mathematics of

Computation 1st Edition Werner Römisch

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-analysis-and-
the-mathematics-of-computation-1st-edition-werner-romisch/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Explore and download more ebook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

European Traditions in Didactics of Mathematics Werner

Blum

https://textbookfull.com/product/european-traditions-in-didactics-of-
mathematics-werner-blum/

textboxfull.com

Mathematical Modelling Applied Analysis and Computation

ICMMAAC 2018 Jaipur India July 6 8 1st Edition Jagdev
Singh
https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-modelling-applied-
analysis-and-computation-icmmaac-2018-jaipur-india-july-6-8-1st-
edition-jagdev-singh/
textboxfull.com

Introductory Mathematical Analysis for Quantitative

Finance (Chapman and Hall/CRC Financial Mathematics
Series) 1st Edition Daniele Ritelli
https://textbookfull.com/product/introductory-mathematical-analysis-
for-quantitative-finance-chapman-and-hall-crc-financial-mathematics-
series-1st-edition-daniele-ritelli/
textboxfull.com

Introduction to machine learning with R rigorous

mathematical analysis First Edition Burger

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-machine-learning-
with-r-rigorous-mathematical-analysis-first-edition-burger/

textboxfull.com
Linear Fresnel Reflector Systems for Solar Radiation
Concentration Theoretical Analysis Mathematical
Formulation and Parameters Computation using MATLAB
Stavros Karathanasis
https://textbookfull.com/product/linear-fresnel-reflector-systems-for-
solar-radiation-concentration-theoretical-analysis-mathematical-
formulation-and-parameters-computation-using-matlab-stavros-
karathanasis/
textboxfull.com

Mathematics and Computation A Theory Revolutionizing

Technology and Science Wigderson

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematics-and-computation-a-theory-
revolutionizing-technology-and-science-wigderson/

textboxfull.com

Pierre Werner and Europe: The Family Archives Behind the

Werner Report Elena Danescu

https://textbookfull.com/product/pierre-werner-and-europe-the-family-
archives-behind-the-werner-report-elena-danescu/

textboxfull.com

An Invitation to Applied Mathematics Differential

Equations Modeling and Computation 1st Edition Carmen
Chicone
https://textbookfull.com/product/an-invitation-to-applied-mathematics-
differential-equations-modeling-and-computation-1st-edition-carmen-
chicone/
textboxfull.com

Mathematical Analysis and Applications 1st Edition

Themistocles M. Rassias

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-analysis-and-
applications-1st-edition-themistocles-m-rassias/

textboxfull.com
Werner Römisch · Thomas Zeugmann

Mathematical
Analysis and the
Mathematics of
Computation
Mathematical Analysis and the Mathematics
of Computation
Werner Römisch Thomas Zeugmann
•

Mathematical Analysis
and the Mathematics
of Computation

123
Werner Römisch Thomas Zeugmann
Institut für Mathematik Division of Computer Science
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Hokkaido University
Berlin Sapporo
Germany Japan

ISBN 978-3-319-42753-9 ISBN 978-3-319-42755-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42755-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016952899

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To our wives, Ute and Yasuyo
Preface

This book aims to provide a comprehensive introduction to the field of (clas-

sical) mathematical analysis and mathematics of computation. While many
students may have a perception of what mathematical analysis might be,
which is often formed in school and college, there is, in our experience, a
rather large surprise when studying mathematical analysis at the university
level.
Concerning mathematics of computation the situation may be even worse.
This field is rich and has seen an enormous development during recent
decades. It comprises numerical analysis, computational discrete mathemat-
ics, including algebra and combinatorics, number theory, and stochastic nu-
merical methods as well as certain aspects related to mathematical optimiza-
tion. In addition there are many interdisciplinary applications of all these
research subjects, e.g., support vector machines, kernel-based learning meth-
ods, pattern recognition, statistical learning theory, computer graphics, ap-
proximation theory, and many more.
So having a solid understanding of the foundations of mathematical anal-
ysis and of its relations to the mathematics of computation is indispensable.
However, these subjects are conventionally taught in separate courses which
may considerably differ in the level of abstraction involved, and it may be
difficult to relate the material taught to one another. Expressed a bit differ-
ently, we are faced with the situation that students who have studied modern
expositions of mathematical analysis are very good at understanding mod-
ern ideas but often have serious difficulties if it comes to really computing
something. On the other hand, students who focused on more elementary
presentations are good at calculating but too often have serious difficulties to
understand the modern lines of thought and their benefits, e.g., why, when,
and where we need a Banach space.
Another aspect is that students who grew up with modern computing
equipment no longer have a serious feeling for what it means to calculate
function values, e.g., root functions, the sine function, or logarithm func-
tions. To have another example, students may be well aware of a power series

VII
VIII Preface

representation of the sine function or the cosine function, but may fail to
explain why this representation coincides with the sine function or the cosine
function, respectively, which they learned in school.
On a higher level, when using computer programs to solve more difficult
problems such as integral equations or ordinary differential equations, then it
is often not clear what the original problem formulated as an operator equa-
tion in an infinite-dimensional space has to do with the computed solutions
obtained by solving (linear) equations in a finite-dimensional space.
Therefore, our goal is to present the whole material in one book and to
carefully elaborate all these points. That is, we shall aim to develop the
whole theory starting from a fairly simple axiom system for the real num-
bers. Then we lay the foundations to a certain extent, i.e., we develop the
theory, and then we exemplify where the theory developed so far is applica-
ble. This in turn provides motivation for why a further development of the
theory explained so far is necessary. In this way we go from sets, structures,
and numbers to metric spaces, continuous functions in metric spaces, and
then on to linear normed spaces and linear mappings. Subsequently, we turn
our attention to the differential calculus and its applications, the integral
calculus, the Gamma function, and linear integral operators. Then we study
important aspects of approximation theory including numerical integration.
The remaining parts of the book are devoted to ordinary differential equa-
tions, the discretization of operator equations, and numerical solutions of
ordinary differential equations.
The intended audience ranges from undergraduate students in mathemat-
ics, computer science, and related fields to all graduate students who are
interested in studying the foundations of mathematical analysis and its wide
range of applications. Moreover, the book may be useful as a reference and
compendium for doctoral and other students who wish to get a deeper under-
standing of the methodology, the techniques, and the groundwork of several
applications they are trying to pursue. In general, it is intended as a four
semester course comprising 15 lectures per semester, provided some choices
are made.
The book also contains numerous exercises of varying degrees of difficulty,
and at the end of each chapter additional problems are provided. The only
difference between exercises and problems is that the former should be solved
by the reader and/or as homework assignments, since they can be solved by
having just studied the material up to the point where they appear. On the
other hand, the problems are to a certain extent intended to shed additional
light on many interesting features and often require a deeper understanding of
the underlying concepts. So they may be better suited for classroom seminars
or study groups.
The material presented in this book goes to a large extent back to lec-
tures, seminars, and compositions read, taught, and made by the authors at
Humboldt University for students in mathematics and computer science at
different stages of our own careers.
Preface IX

We are greatly indebted to the inspiring lectures, seminars, and discussions

at Humboldt University in Berlin and elsewhere which deeply influenced our
view and passion for mathematical analysis and the mathematics of com-
putation. In particular, our colleagues and teachers Roswita März, Konrad
Gröger, Arno Langenbach, Udo Pirl, Wolfgang Tutschke, and Helmut Wolter
carefully guided us through all the stages necessary to get acquainted with
mathematical analysis and the mathematics of computation.
We also gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Heinz W. Engl at
Johannes Kepler University Linz, who shared with the first author his own
lecture notes on related subjects.
The second author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Norihiro
Yamada and Charles Jordan for their careful reading of a preliminary version
of this book and for the many enlightening discussions we had on the material
presented in these notes. Of course, all possible errors you may find in this
book are ours.
Finally, we heartily thank Springer-Verlag for professional support and ad-
vice. In particular, we gratefully acknowledge the encouragement, guidance,
patience, and excellent cooperation with Ronan Nugent of Springer.

Berlin, Sapporo Werner Römisch

August 2016 Thomas Zeugmann
Contents

1 Sets, Structures, Numbers 1

1.1 Sets and Algebraic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The Real Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Natural Numbers, Rational Numbers, and Real Numbers . . . . 10
1.4 Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5 Representations of the Real Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.6 Mappings and Numerosity of Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.7 Linear Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.8 Complex Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Problems for Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2 Metric Spaces 47
2.1 Introducing Metric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2 Open and Closed Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3 Convergent Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.4 Banach’s Fixed Point Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5 Compactness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.6 Connectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.7 Product Metric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.8 Sequences in R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.9 Sequences in the Euclidean Space Rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.10 Infinite Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.10.1 Rearrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.11 Power Series and Elementary Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.11.1 Power Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.11.2 Elementary Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Problems for Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

XI
XII Contents

3 Continuous Functions in Metric Spaces 119

3.1 Introducing Continuous Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.2 Properties of Continuous Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.3 Semicontinuous Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.4 Variations of Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.5 Continuous Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.6 Continuous Functions over R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.7 Functional Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Problems for Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4 Linear Normed Spaces, Linear Operators 157

4.1 Linear Normed Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4.2 Spaces of Continuous Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.3 The Arzelà–Ascoli Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.4 Linear Bounded Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.5 The Space L(X1 , X2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.6 The Banach–Steinhaus Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.7 Invertible Linear Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.8 Compact Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Problems for Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

5 The Differential Calculus 201

5.1 Real-Valued Functions of a Single Real Variable . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.1.1 Mean Value Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.1.2 Derivatives of Power Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.1.3 The Graph of the Sine Function and of the Cosine
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.1.4 Taylor’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.2 The Fréchet Derivative and Partial Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5.2.1 Directional Derivatives, Partial Derivatives, and
Fréchet Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.2.2 Criterions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5.2.3 Higher-Order Partial Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.2.4 The Chain Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
5.2.5 Generalized Mean Value Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
5.2.6 Taylor’s Theorem Generalized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.2.7 A Linear Unbounded Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Problems for Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

6 Applications of the Differential Calculus 269

6.1 Numerical Solutions of Nonlinear Systems of Equations . . . . . 269
6.1.1 Newton-Like Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
6.1.2 Solving Systems of Linear Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
6.1.3 Quasi-Newton Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
6.2 Solving Extremal Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Contents XIII

6.2.1 Necessary Optimality Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

6.2.2 Convex Sets and Convex Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
6.2.3 Descending Iterative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
6.3 Implicit Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
6.4 Continuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Problems for Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

7 The Integral Calculus 337

7.1 The Indefinite Integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
7.1.1 Antiderivatives for Rational Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
7.2 The Definite Riemann Integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
7.2.1 The Jordan Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
7.2.2 Fubini’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
7.2.3 Riemann Integral and Antiderivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
7.3 Curves, Arc Length, and Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
7.3.1 Complex Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
7.4 Improper Integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
7.4.1 The Gamma Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Problems for Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

8 Linear Integral Operators 421

8.1 Introducing Integral Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
8.2 Fredholm Integral Equations of the Second Kind . . . . . . . . . . 423
8.3 Fredholm Integral Equations of the First Kind . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Problems for Chapter 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

9 Inner Product Spaces 429

9.1 Introducing Inner Product Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
9.2 Fourier Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
Problems for Chapter 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446

10 Approximative Representation of Functions 447

10.1 Best Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
10.2 Least Squares Approximation with Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . 453
10.3 Uniform Approximation with Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
10.4 The Stone–Weierstrass Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
10.5 Back to Trigonometric Fourier Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
10.6 Interpolation with Polynomials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
10.7 Approximation and Interpolation with Splines . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
10.7.1 B-Splines and Spline Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
10.7.2 Interpolation with Splines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
10.8 Numerical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
10.9 Richardson Extrapolation and Romberg Integration . . . . . . . . 519
Problems for Chapter 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
XIV Contents

11 Ordinary Differential Equations 525

11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
11.2 Initial Value Problems for Ordinary Differential Equations . . . 527
11.2.1 Continuation Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
11.3 Initial Value Problems for Linear Systems of Differential
Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
11.4 Further Common Types of Ordinary Differential Equations . . 577
Problems for Chapter 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592

12 Discretization of Operator Equations 595

12.1 Discrete Approximation of Metric Spaces and of Operators . . 596
12.2 Collectively Compact Operator Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . 602
12.3 Quadrature Rules for Fredholm Integral Equations of the
Second Kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
Problems for Chapter 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613

13 Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations 615

13.1 Integration Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations . . . . 616
13.2 Consistency, Stability, and Convergence of Integration
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
13.3 One-Step Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630
13.4 Runge–Kutta Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
13.5 Linear Multistep Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650
13.6 Asymptotic Behavior of Integration Methods and Stiff
Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Problems for Chapter 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673

References 675

Subject Index 685

Introduction

This book mainly deals with introductory mathematical analysis and mathe-
matics of computation with a certain focus on numerical analysis. In partic-
ular, we shall provide all the necessary foundations from mathematical anal-
ysis and make this book as self-contained as possible. We only assume basic
knowledge of set theory and basic knowledge of linear algebra. Whenever
appropriate, we shall include sample applications.
Mathematical analysis aims at the study of the dependence of quantities.
This leads to the investigation of functional correlations. Its history goes
back to ancient times. For example, Babylonian mathematicians performed
√
amazingly correct calculations to compute the numerical value of 2. The
Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse used the technique of
exhaustion to approximate the value of π. Furthermore, he calculated the
volumes of complicated
√ bodies. Euclid’s Elements contains a proof for the
irrationality of 2. But after the collapse of the Roman Empire, mathematics
endured a period of decline. In the ninth century the Persian mathematician
Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi established the basis for innovation in algebra
and trigonometry, and for the next 200 years Persian and Arabic mathematics
flourished. It had a profound impact on the advance of mathematics in Europe
after it was translated into Latin.
Then it took more than 400 years before the practical needs (finance, nav-
igation, astronomy, optics, military applications) triggered an exciting devel-
opment of mathematics. We mention Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), James
Gregory (1638–1675), Isaac Newton (1643–1727), Jakob I. Bernoulli (1655–
1705), Johann Bernoulli (1667–1748), and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–
1716). In particular, the calculus was developed, comprising the concepts
of differential quotient, and integral (Newton used fluxion and fluent, re-
spectively) as well as the basic notions. Once the founders of calculus had
intuitively understood these concepts they showed that they possessed an
extremely powerful set of methods. Numerous problems in geometry, astron-
omy, physics, and pure mathematical analysis were solved. Foundations did
not really matter. It should be noted that, at this time, the notion of limit

XV
XVI Introduction

did not have an exact foundation, and thus there was no exact definition of
what is meant by limit.
The 18th century saw a remarkable and interesting development of calcu-
lus. Euler (1707–1783), Lagrange (1736–1813), and Gauss (1777–1855) among
others made fundamental contributions. However, the exact foundations were
still missing.
The exact foundations were developed in the 19th century by Bolzano
(1781–1848), Cauchy (1789–1857), Weierstrass (1815–1897), Cantor (1845–
1918), and also Dedekind (1831–1916), who provided the exact foundations
of the real numbers. Once the foundations were established, an enormous
development took place. Mathematics of computation emerged around 1940
as an independent branch. It was and is still triggered by the advancement
of computer technology.
The main purpose of the present book is to introduce the reader to this
fascinating part of mathematics. Roughly speaking, we begin with sets, struc-
tures, and numbers. In particular, we shall base the whole course on a very
small set of axioms for the real numbers and then derive all results from these
axioms. This includes the whole material presented in this book.
After having laid these foundations, we turn our attention to abstract sets
in which a distance of elements is defined (so-called metric spaces) and study
their properties. In addition, several topological notions are introduced, and
convergence of sequences is defined and investigated. Further fundamental
ingredients are the notions of compactness and connectedness. Subsequently,
we apply the insight obtained to the reals and the Euclidean space, and de-
fine and investigate elementary functions. Then we return to abstract metric
spaces and deal with continuous mappings. Next, we study structures that
additionally possess an algebraic structure and introduce linear operators.
Then we shall develop the classical differential calculus and the classical
integral calculus from a modern perspective. Furthermore, whenever appro-
priate, we shall also include a more advanced and abstract view and study
elements of functional analysis and its implications for numerical analysis.
Moreover, we shall spend some time on ordinary differential equations, and
numerical methods to solve them.
Note that this course is in part based on a similar course read by Werner
Römisch from Humboldt University (for which the second author worked as
an assistant), while still at Humboldt University. We would like to mention
that we have been deeply influenced by the following texts: Crouzeix and
Mignot [36], Dieudonné [46], Hairer, Nørsett, and Wanner [79], Hairer and
Wanner [80], Hämmerlin and Hoffmann [81], Kantorovich and Akilov [100],
Langenbach [111], Schwetlick [167], Stoer and Bulirsch [170], and Zeidler [194,
195].
How to read this book? We recommend to start at the first page and to
continue to the last one. There is almost nothing that could or should be
skipped. It is hoped that the reader will enjoy the accumulating insight while
reading as much as we enjoyed it while writing this text.
List of Symbols

|A| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 C ............................ 38

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 (C, | · |) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 C1 (I, Rm ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
Ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Cb (T , X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 (Cb (T , X), k · k) . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
−a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 χB (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
a−1 .......................... 6 cl(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
a−n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CM (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Cm (T ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
ax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 cond(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
(a ∗ a)inv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 condp (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
(A|B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 cos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
(a, b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 cosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
[a, b[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 cot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114, 229
[a, b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Cp (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
]a, b[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C(T ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
]a, b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C(T , X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
(a, b, c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C[x] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
|x| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
acc(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
arccos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 d ............................ 48
arcosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Da` ......................... 144
arcsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Dar ......................... 144
arg(z) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
arsinh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 deg p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
∆k−1 x(ti1 , . . . , tik ) . . . . . . . . 476
df
α
dx (x0 ) ..................... 202


k
......................... 236
n ∂f
.......................... 14 ∂xj (x0 ) .................... 243
k
Bki (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 ∂2 f
∂x2i
(x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
∂B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 ∂2 f
B(T ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 159 ∂xi ∂xj (x0 ) ................. 250
(B(T ), d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 diag(α1 , . . . , αp ) . . . . . . . . . . . 640
B(T , Rm ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 353 diam(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B(T , X) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 dN (x, y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
(B(T , X), k · k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 dom(F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B(x, r) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 d(P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
B(x, r) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 d(x, A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

XVII
XVIII List of Symbols

e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Jf (x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
ei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 243 J−k (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
∅ .............................. 1 Jν (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
n
k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 K .......................... 489
ex ln a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Kw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
exp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 ker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
exp(R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 K[x] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
exp |R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
`2 (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
F −1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 `2 (R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
F|A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 L(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
f` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 λmax (A> A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
fr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 lim f(x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
x→a
F(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 lim f(xn ) ................. 139
f(a−) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 n→∞

f(a+) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 lim f(x) ................. 144

x→a−
fB (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 lim f(x) ................. 144
x→a+
(F, ◦, ∗) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 lim inf xn .................... 79
F−1 (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 n→∞
f(n) (x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 lim xn ..................... 79
n→∞
f 00 (x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 lim ϕ(h) .................. 202
f 0 (x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 h→0
lim sup xn ................... 79
F(X, Y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 n→∞
lim xn ..................... 79
γ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 n→∞
lim xn ..................... 53
Γ (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 n→∞
G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 Ln (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
G0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
G(C1 , C2 , C3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 log10 ....................... 109
(G, ◦) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 L({x1 , . . . , xm }) . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
G ◦ F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 L(X1 , X2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
g(h) = O(r(h)) . . . . . . . . . . . 282 L((xn )n∈N ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
g(h) = o(r(h)) . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 L(X, R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

h(G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603

h` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 max A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hm ........................ 591 M∩N ....................... 2
Hn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 M∪N ....................... 2
(M, d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 min A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 M\N ........................ 2
(IM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
inf A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
× M
n
...................
i=1 i
M×N .......................
3
3
int(A)
R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 µ(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
R f(x) dx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 · .............................. 6
I f(x) dx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
(b
I, xb ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
e ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
(Ĩ, x n! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 13
=(z) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 N(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
∇2 f(x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
J` .......................... 353 N(G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Ju .......................... 353 Nn (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
List of Symbols XIX

Nν (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 <(z) ........................ 39

kAk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
kfkp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 hx, yi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 429
kxk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 158 S(h, f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
kxk1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
kxk2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 sinh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
kxk∞ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Sk (Ωn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
kxkp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 (S, 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
kxG kG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 S(P, f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
kyG kG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 Pn f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
s(P, 353
N ⊆ M ....................... 2 Pi=1 ai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
∞
N ⊂ M ....................... 2 k=0 ak .................... 85
sup A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
o = (1, . . . , 1)> . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 sup |f(t)| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
t∈T
ω(f; a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
ω(f; x0 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114, 229
ω(f; x0 , δ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 Θ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66, 183
osc(f; A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 T (h, f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516

+ ............................. 6 U ............................ 49
PC (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
p(D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 W(t) ....................... 554
P(I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
π . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 X∗ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Pi1 ,...,ik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476 X ∼ Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Pn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 XG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
pr 1 (x, y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 xG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
pr
Qn 2 (x, y) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 x ∈ M ........................ 1
i=1 ai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 x∈/ M ........................ 1
℘(S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 x` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
Px . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 (xλ )λ∈L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
x < y ......................... 6
Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (X, k · k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Q(t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 xn −−−→ x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
n→∞
d
R ............................. 6 xn −−−→ x ................ 597
n→∞
R+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 x + yi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
(R, | · |) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 (X, XG , rGn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 (X, Xn , rn )n∈N . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
(Rm , k · k) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 (x1 , . . . , xn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
R[a, b] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
range(F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 dye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
R(B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 byc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
rG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 YG ......................... 627
r̃G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 yG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
ρ(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Yν (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
rk(A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 (Y, YG , r̃Gn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
R√ n (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233, 234 Z ............................ 10
n
√ a .......................... 19 z ............................ 39
q
ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 z1 · · · zk .zk+1 zk+2 · · · ...... 22
List of Figures

1.1 The graph of the function |x| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 Pascal’s triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 The numbers from 1 to n in increasing order and in
decreasing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4 A two-dimensional array representing N × N . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 The bijection c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.6 The unit circle U1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.7 The unit circle U∞ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.8 The complex plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2.1 Approximations of Euler’s number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

3.1 Continuity of the mapping f at x0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

3.2 Illustration of the continuity of the mapping
f(x) = x/2 + 1 at 1 for ε = 1/4 and δ = 1/2 . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.3 An approximative plot of Thomae’s function . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.4 Illustration of the intermediate value theorem . . . . . . . . . 130
3.5 Upper semicontinuity of the function f at 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.6 Jump discontinuity of the function f at 0 with jump σ = 2 146
3.7 A removable discontinuity of the function g at 0 . . . . . . . . 146

5.1 Geometrical interpretation of the derivative . . . . . . . . . . . 203

5.2 Illustration of Rolle’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.3 Illustration of the mean value theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.4 Geometrical interpretation of convexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.5 The sine function and the cosine function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.6 Geometrical interpretation of the functions sin and cos . . 230
5.7 Geometrical interpretation of the functions tan and cot . . 231
5.8 Geometrical construction to show the addition theorems
for the sine function and the cosine function . . . . . . . . . . . 231

XXI
XXII List of Figures

6.1 Condition numbers of the Hilbert matrices of order n . . . 283

7.1 A two-dimensional compact interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

7.2 A partition of [a, b] and of a two-dimensional compact
interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
7.3 Darboux lower sum and Darboux upper sum . . . . . . . . . . 353
7.4 Geometrical interpretation of the mean value theorem for
integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
7.5 Approximation of the curve length by line segments ..... 390
The area of the gold region is equal to Γ 12 . . . . . . . . . . .


7.6 413
7.7 The area of the red region is equal to the
Euler–Mascheroni constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
7.8 Jordan content of the Euclidean unit balls for
m = 1, . . . , 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

10.1 The interpolation polynomial L3 (t) obtained in

Example 10.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
10.2 The function x(t) = |t| interpolated by Newton
interpolation polynomials with 5 nodes and 13 nodes
based on the zeros of Chebyshev polynomials . . . . . . . . . . 486
10.3 The function x(t) = |t| interpolated by Newton
interpolation polynomials with 3 nodes and 5 nodes . . . . . 487
10.4 The function x(t) = |t| interpolated by Newton
interpolation polynomials with 11 nodes and 13 nodes . . . 487
10.5 The functions B01 and B1 2 , where t1 = 1/2, t2 = 5/4,
t3 = 7/4, and t4 = (11)/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
10.6 The quadratic B-spline B21 (t) with equidistant knots . . . . 493
10.7 The quadratic B-splines B21 (t) and B22 (t) with
equidistant knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
10.8 The cubic B-spline B31 (t) with equidistant
knots . . . . . . . 494
1
10.9 The function x(t) = 4.44 · sin(4t) − cos 25 t interpolated by
a natural cubic spline and a Newton polynomial by using 7
equidistant nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
1
10.10 The function x(t) = 4.44 · sin(4t) − cos 25 t interpolated by
a natural cubic spline by using 18 equidistant
nodes . . . . . 508
1
10.11 The function x(t) = 4.44 · sin(4t) − cos 25 t interpolated by
a natural cubic spline by using 50 equidistant nodes . . . . . 509
10.12 The function x(t) = |t| and an interpolating cubic spline
for it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
10.13 The Richardson tableau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520

11.1 Spring–mass–dashpot system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558

13.1 Illustration of the explicit Euler method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

13.2 Classes of admissible grids on which k-step BDF methods
are stable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
List of Figures XXIII

13.3 The region of absolute stability for the explicit Euler

method (cyan disk) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
13.4 The region of absolute stability for the implicit Euler
method (complement of the white disk) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
13.5 A(α)-stability of k-step BDF methods for 3 6 k 6 6 . . . . . 670
Chapter 1
Sets, Structures, Numbers

Abstract In this chapter we shall introduce most of the background needed

to develop the foundations of mathematical analysis. We start with sets and
algebraic structures. Then the real numbers are defined axiomatically. This
in turn allows one to define natural numbers, integers, rational numbers, and
irrational numbers as well as to derive fundamental properties of these num-
bers. Next, we study representations of real numbers. Then we turn our at-
tention to mappings and the numerosity of sets. In particular, it is shown that
there are many more real numbers than rational numbers. Furthermore, we
introduce linear spaces. The chapter is concluded by defining the complex
numbers.

1.1 Sets and Algebraic Structures

It is not possible to include here the foundations of set theory. The interested
reader is referred to the extensive literature, e.g., Kunen [106] and Hrbacek
and Jech [93]. So the approach taken here is naı̈ve set theory.
We briefly recall some basics. Following Cantor we define a set to be any
collection of definite, distinct objects of our perception or of our thought.
The objects of a set are called elements. If M is a set and x belongs to M,
then we write x ∈ M; if x does not belong to M, then we write x ∈ / M.
Note that this definition is not adequate for a formal development of set
theory. So, we have to be careful.
We shall define sets either extensionally, i.e., by listing all the elements in
the set; for example, M =df {a, b, c, d}, or intensionally, i.e., by providing a
particular property P that all the elements must fulfill; for example, we then
write M =df {x | x satisfies P}.
Furthermore, we shall use the following: By ∅ we denote the empty set,
i.e., the set which contains no elements.
Moreover, we need the following definition:

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

W. Römisch and T. Zeugmann, Mathematical Analysis and the Mathematics
of Computation, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42755-3_1
2 1 Sets, Structures, Numbers

Definition 1.1. Let M and N be any sets. Then we write

(1) N ⊆ M if x ∈ N implies that x ∈ M (subset);
(2) N = M if N ⊆ M and M ⊆ N, otherwise we write N 6= M;
(3) N ⊂ M if N ⊆ M and N 6= M (proper subset);
(4) M ∪ N =df {x | x ∈ M or x ∈ N} (union);
(5) M ∩ N =df {x | x ∈ M and x ∈ N} (intersection);
(6) M \ N =df {x | x ∈ M and x ∈
/ N} (difference);
(7) CM (N) =df M \ N (complement of N with respect to M), where we
have to assume that N ⊆ M.
Example 1.1. Let M = {a, b, c, d} and let N = {b, c}. Then b ∈ N and b ∈ M
as well as c ∈ N and c ∈ M. We conclude that N ⊆ M, i.e., N is a subset
of M. Since a ∈ M but a ∈ / N, we see that N ⊂ M, i.e., N is a proper
subset of M. Consequently, M ⊆ N does not hold. If M ⊆ N is not true then
we write M 6⊆ N. Furthermore, it is easy to see that M ∪ N = {a, b, c, d},
M ∩ N = {b, c}, M \ N = {a, d}, and CM (N) = {a, d}.
Theorem 1.1. Let M, N, and S be any sets. Then the following properties
are satisfied:
(1) M ⊆ M;
(2) M ⊆ N and N ⊆ S implies M ⊆ S;
(3) M ∩ N ⊆ M ⊆ M ∪ N;
(4) ∅ ⊆ M, M \ M = ∅, M \ ∅ = M, and M \ N ⊆ M;
(5) the union is associative and commutative, i.e., (M ∪ N) ∪ S = M ∪ (N ∪ S)
and M ∪ N = N ∪ M, respectively;
(6) the intersection is associative and commutative, i.e.,

(M ∩ N) ∩ S = M ∩ (N ∩ S) and M ∩ N = N ∩ M, respectively.

Theorem 1.2. Let M, N, and S be any sets. Then the following properties
are satisfied:
(1) M ∩ (N ∪ S) = (M ∩ N) ∪ (M ∩ S), and
M ∪ (N ∩ S) = (M ∪ N) ∩ (M ∪ S) (distributive laws);
(2) M ∩ N = M \ (M \ N);
(3) let N ⊆ M and S ⊆ M; then we have CM (N ∪ S) = CM (N) ∩ CM (S) and
CM (N ∩ S) = CM (N) ∪ CM (S) (De Morgan’s laws).
We do not prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 here but leave the proofs of these
theorems as an exercise.
Furthermore, we shall use the following notations: Let S be any finite or
infinite collection of sets; then we set
[
S =df {x | there is an S ∈ S such that x ∈ S} ,
S∈S
\
S =df {x | for all S ∈ S we have x ∈ S} .
S∈S
1.1 Sets and Algebraic Structures 3
n
S n
T
If we have sets S1 , S2 , S3 , . . . then we also use the notations Si , and Si ,
i=1 i=1
∞
S ∞
T
as well as Si , and Si .
i=1 i=1
Let S be any set, then we write ℘(S) to denote the set of all subsets of S.
We call ℘(S) the power set of S.
Example 1.2. Let us consider the set S = {a, b, c}. Then

℘(S) = {∅, {a}, {b}, {c}, {a, b}, {a, c}, {b, c}, {a, b, c}} .

Exercise 1.1. Let S1 = {1, 2, 3, 4}, and let S2 = ∅. Compute ℘(S1 ) and ℘(S2 ).
Following Kuratowski [107] we define a set of two elements, where a first
element is determined, and call it an ordered pair ; that is, we set

(a, b) =df {{a}, {a, b}} .

Note that this definition is adequate, since it allows one to show the charac-
teristic property an ordered pair has to fulfill, i.e.,

(a, b) = (c, d) iff a = c and b = d .

The definition of an ordered pair can be easily generalized to ordered triples,

or more generally, ordered n-tuples, which we shall denote by (a, b, c) and
(x1 , . . . , xn ), respectively.
Let M and N be any sets. We define the product M × N of M and N by

M × N =df {(m, n) | m ∈ M and n ∈ N} .

It is also called the Cartesian product of M and N. Note that M × ∅ = ∅ by

definition. Let S1 , . . . , Sn be any sets, then their n-fold product is the set
n

×S
i=1
i =df {(s1 , . . . , sn ) | si ∈ Si for all i = 1, . . . , n} .

Next, we turn our attention to algebraic structures. An algebraic structure

is a non-empty set on which one or more operations are defined along with
some axioms that must be satisfied.
Definition 1.2 (Group). Let G 6= ∅ be any set, and let ◦ : G × G → G be
any binary operation. We call (G, ◦) a group if
(1) (a ◦ b) ◦ c = a ◦ (b ◦ c) for all a, b, c ∈ G (i.e., ◦ is associative);
(2) there is a neutral element e ∈ G such that a ◦ e = e ◦ a = a for all a ∈ G;
(3) for every element a ∈ G there exists an inverse element b ∈ G such
that a ◦ b = b ◦ a = e.
(4) A group is called an Abelian group if ◦ is also commutative, i.e., a◦b = b◦a
for all a, b ∈ G.
4 1 Sets, Structures, Numbers

Commutative groups are called Abelian groups in honor of Niels Henrik Abel.

Exercise 1.2. Show that the neutral element e and the inverse elements de-
fined above are uniquely determined.

Definition 1.3 (Field). Let F 6= ∅ be any set containing two distinguished

elements 0 and 1, where 0 6= 1, and let ◦, ∗ : F × F → F be two binary
operations. We call (F, ◦, ∗) a field if
(1) (F, ◦) is an Abelian group (with neutral element 0);
(2) (F \ {0}, ∗) is a group (with neutral element 1);
(3) the following distributive laws are satisfied:

a ∗ (b ◦ c) = (a ∗ b) ◦ (a ∗ b),
(a ◦ b) ∗ c = (a ∗ c) ◦ (b ∗ c) .

(4) A field (F, ◦, ∗) is said to be Abelian (or commutative) if a ∗ b = b ∗ a for

all a, b ∈ F \ {0} holds.

We refer to 0 as the neutral element and to 1 as the identity element.

The following theorem provides some fundamental properties of fields:
Note that “iff” is used as an abbreviation for “if and only if.”

Theorem 1.3. Let (F, ◦, ∗) be any field. Then we have

(1) a ∗ 0 = 0 ∗ a = 0 for all a ∈ F;
(2) a ∗ b = 0 iff a = 0 or b = 0;
(3) for all a, b ∈ F, a 6= 0 there is precisely one x ∈ F such that a ∗ x = b.

Proof. First, we show that a ∗ 0 = 0. Let a ∈ F be arbitrarily fixed. Note

that a ◦ 0 = a (Property (2) of Definition 1.2) and consider

a ∗ a = a ∗ (a ◦ 0) = (a ∗ a) ◦ (a ∗ 0)
(a ∗ a) ◦ (a ∗ a)inv = (a ∗ a) ◦ (a ∗ 0) ◦ (a ∗ a)inv
0 = (a ∗ a) ◦ (a ∗ a)inv ◦ (a ∗ 0)
0 = (a ∗ 0) ,

where (a ∗ a)inv denotes the inverse of (a ∗ a) with respect to ◦.

The first equation above used the distributive law, the second line applied
the fact that every element in F has an inverse with respect to ◦, the third
line used that ◦ is commutative, and the last line the fact that 0 is the neutral
element.
The second part 0 ∗ a = 0 can be shown analogously.
The sufficiency of Property (2) follows from Property (1).
For the necessity assume that a ∗ b = 0 and a 6= 0. Let a be the inverse
of a with respect to ∗. Then we have
1.1 Sets and Algebraic Structures 5

a ∗ 0 = a ∗ (a ∗ b) = (a ∗ a) ∗ b
0 = 1∗b=b ,

where we used Property (1), the associativity of ∗, and the fact that 1 is the
identity element.
To show Property (3) we note that x = (a ∗ b) is a solution of a ∗ x = b
(recall that a 6= 0). So, it remains to show that the solution is uniquely
determined.
Suppose that there are two solutions x1 and x2 in F. Then we have

a ∗ x1 = b = a ∗ x2
a ∗ (a ∗ x1 ) = a ∗ (a ∗ x2 )
(a ∗ a) ∗ x1 = (a ∗ a) ∗ x2
1 ∗ x1 = 1 ∗ x2
x1 = x2 ,

where we again used the associativity of ∗ and the property of the identity
element that 1 ∗ x = x ∗ 1 = x for all x ∈ F.

Next we turn our attention to relations.

Definition 1.4 (Binary Relation). Let S 6= ∅ be any set. Then any subset
R ⊆ S × S is called a binary relation over S.
Definition 1.5 (Order Relation). Let S = 6 0 be any set, and let 6 be a
binary relation over S. We call 6 an order relation if the following axioms
are satisfied:
(1) x 6 x for all x ∈ S (reflexivity);
(2) x 6 y and y 6 z implies x 6 z for all x, y, z ∈ S (transitivity);
(3) x 6 y and y 6 x implies x = y for all x, y ∈ S (antisymmetry).
We call (S, 6) an ordered set if 6 is an order relation.
Definition 1.6. Let (S, 6) be any ordered set, and let A ⊆ S. We say that A
is bounded from above if there is a c ∈ S such that a 6 c for all a ∈ A. The
element c is said to be an upper bound of A.
The terms bounded from below and lower bound are similarly defined.
Let A be bounded from above and let

B =df {c | c ∈ S and c is an upper bound of A} .

If there is an s ∈ B such that s 6 c for all c ∈ B then we call s the least upper
bound of A or the supremum of A and denote it by sup A. If s ∈ A then we
call it the maximum of A and write max A.
The terms greatest lower bound, infimum, inf A, minimum, and min A are
similarly defined.
6 1 Sets, Structures, Numbers

1.2 The Real Numbers

We introduce real numbers by using an axiomatic approach.

Definition 1.7. A set R is called a set of the real numbers if there are two
operations + : R → R and · : R → R (called addition and multiplication,
respectively) and an order relation 6 over R such that the following axioms
are satisfied:
(1) (R, +, · ) is an Abelian field;
(2) (R, 6) satisfies also the following properties:
(i) For all x, y ∈ R we have x 6 y or y 6 x;
(ii) for all x, y ∈ R with x 6 y we have x + z 6 y + z for all z ∈ R;
(iii) 0 6 x and 0 6 y implies 0 6 x · y for all x, y ∈ R.
(3) For all A ⊆ R, if A 6= ∅, and if A is bounded from above then sup A ∈ R
exists.

We shall use these axioms given in Definition 1.7 to derive all the properties
of the real numbers that are relevant for the development of our theories.
It should be noted that we postulate the existence of a non-empty set R
that satisfies the axioms of Definition 1.7.
It should also be noted that R is not uniquely determined by the axioms
given. But the different models of R differ only in properties that are not
interesting for the analysis.
For example, let us consider the set R 0 =df {(r, 0) | r ∈ R} and let us
define + by setting (a, 0) + (b, 0) =df (a + b, 0) as well as · by setting
(a, 0) · (b, 0) =df (a · b, 0). Then R 0 also satisfies the axioms of Definition 1.7
provided R does.
Note that one can derive the axioms of Definition 1.7 from axioms of
axiomatic set theory and from axioms for the natural numbers. This was done
by Cantor and Dedekind among others. This approach was fundamental for
the historical development of the analysis, but here it suffices to know that
it can be done. Below we shall also touch on the so-called Dedekind cuts.
Clearly, 0 and 1 are the neutral element and the identity element of R,
respectively. We write −a to denote the additive inverse of a for any a ∈ R.
The multiplicative inverse of a for any a ∈ R \ {0} is denoted by a−1 (or 1/a).
We frequently omit the multiplication dot, i.e., we write ab instead of a · b.
Some further notations are needed. We write x < y if x 6 y and x 6= y.
For a, b ∈ R with a < b we use

[a, b] =df {x | x ∈ R and a 6 x 6 b} (closed interval );

]a, b[ =df {x | x ∈ R and a < x < b} (open interval );
[a,b[ =df {x | x ∈ R and a 6 x < b} (half-open interval );
]a,b] =df {x | x ∈ R and a < x 6 b} (half-open interval ).
1.2 The Real Numbers 7

We define the absolute value |x| of x ∈ R as follows:

x, if x > 0 ;
|x| =df (1.1)
−x, if x < 0 .

Note that −x 6 |x| 6 x for all x ∈ R. So, the absolute value is a function that
maps the real numbers to the non-negative numbers. Figure 1.1 shows the
graph of this function. For a formal definition of what is meant by a function,
we refer the reader to Section 1.6.

|x|
3
2
1

−4 −3 −2 −1 1 2 3 4 x

Fig. 1.1: The graph of the function |x|

We continue with some properties of the real numbers that can be derived
from the axioms given in Definition 1.7.

Proposition 1.1. For all a, b ∈ R the following properties are satisfied:

(1) ab > 0 iff (a > 0 and b > 0) or (a < 0 and b < 0);
(2) a < b implies a < 12 (a + b) < b.
(3) For the absolute value we have
(i) |a| > 0 and |a| = 0 iff a = 0;
(ii) |ab| = |a| |b|;
(iii) |a + b| 6 |a| + |b| (triangle inequality);
(iv) | |a| − |b| | 6 |a − b|.

Proof. Necessity. Let ab > 0 and suppose that a > 0 and b < 0. Taking into
account that −b = −b and b + (−b) = 0 (by the definition of the additive
inverse), we obtain 0 < −b.
By Theorem 1.3 we have a · 0 = 0 for all a ∈ R. Thus,

a(b + (−b)) = 0
ab + a(−b) = 0 (distributive law) .

Next, we add (−ab) on both sides and obtain

8 1 Sets, Structures, Numbers

ab + a(−b) + (−ab) = 0 + (−ab)

ab + (−ab) + a(−b) = −ab (commutative law)
a(−b) = −ab .

Since 0 < a, 0 < −b, and a(−b) = −ab, we therefore get by Axiom (2),
Part (iii) that 0 < a(−b) = −ab, and consequently ab < 0, a contradiction.
The sufficiency is a direct consequence of Axiom (2), Part (iii).
We show Property (2). Let a < b. Since 1 is the identity element, we
directly get a = 1 · a, and thus, by distributivity, a + a = (1 + 1)a = 2a. By
Axiom (2), Part (ii) we conclude

a+a < a+b

2a < a + b
0 < (a + b) + (−2a)
1
0 < ((a + b) + (−2a)) (Axiom (2), Part (iii))
2
1
0 < (a + b) + (−a)
2
1
a < (a + b) (Axiom (2), Part (ii)) .
2
The right-hand side is shown analogously.
Finally, we prove Property (3). We only show the triangle inequality here;
the rest is left as an exercise.
The definition of the absolute value gives a 6 |a| and b 6 |b| as well
as −a 6 |a| and −b 6 |b|. So by Axiom (2), Part (ii) we get

a + b 6 |a| + |b| , (1.2)

(−a) + (−b) 6 |a| + |b| . (1.3)

Therefore, if a + b > 0, then the definition of the absolute value implies

that |a + b| = a + b 6 |a| + |b| by (1.2).
Furthermore, if a + b < 0 then we use −(a + b) = (−a) + (−b), and thus,
by Inequality (1.3) we obtain

0 < −(a + b) 6 |a| + |b|

|a + b| 6 |a| + |b| .

This completes the proof of Proposition 1.1.

Proposition 1.1 directly allows for the following corollary:

Corollary 1.1. For all a ∈ R with a 6= 0 we have
(1) aa > 0;
(2) in particular, 0 < 1 and a > 0 iff 1/a > 0.
1.2 The Real Numbers 9

Proof. Property (1) is a direct consequence of Proposition 1.1, Property (1).

Since 1·1 = 1 and by definition 1 6= 0, we have 0 < 1. Finally, a·(1/a) = 1 > 0,
and so the rest is directly due to Proposition 1.1, Property (1).

We continue with further properties of the real numbers that can be derived
from the axioms given in Definition 1.7.
Theorem 1.4. Let A, B ⊆ R be non-empty sets such that a 6 b for all a ∈ A
and all b ∈ B. Then there is a c ∈ R such that a 6 c 6 b for all a ∈ A and
all b ∈ B.
Proof. By assumption, A 6= ∅ and bounded from above (every b ∈ B is an
upper bound). Thus, by Axiom (3) we know that c =df sup A ∈ R exists.
Hence, a 6 c for all a ∈ A. Since sup A is the least upper bound, we must
have c 6 b for all b ∈ B.

Theorem 1.4 allows for the following corollary:

Corollary 1.2. Let A, B ⊆ R be any non-empty sets such that a < b for
all a ∈ A and all b ∈ B and A ∪ B = R. Then there exists a uniquely
determined c ∈ R such that a 6 c 6 b for all a ∈ A and all b ∈ B.
Proof. By Theorem 1.4 the existence of a c with the desired properties is
clear. Suppose there are c1 and c2 such that a 6 ci 6 b, i = 1, 2, for all
a ∈ A and all b ∈ B.
Without loss of generality let c1 < c2 .
Then sup A 6 c1 < c2 6 b for all b ∈ B. Consequently, c1 ∈/ B and c2 ∈
/ A.
Thus, we must have c1 ∈ A and c2 ∈ B.
Therefore, by Proposition 1.1, Property (2), we directly obtain
1
c1 = sup A < (c1 + c2 ) < c2 6 b for all b ∈ B
2
1
(c1 + c2 ) ∈
/ A∪B=R ,
2
a contradiction to Axiom (1) (R is a field).

Sets A, B fulfilling the assumptions of Corollary 1.2 are called a Dedekind

cut and usually written as (A|B). That is, for any two such sets A, B, there
is precisely one point c ∈ R, the so-called cut. That means the reals do not
have any “gap.”
In fact, Dedekind [43] used such cuts (A|B), where A, B ⊆ Q and A∪B = Q
(here Q denotes the set of all rational numbers), to introduce the real numbers
based on the axiomatic definition of the natural numbers.
Remarks. We shall proceed here in the opposite direction; i.e., we shall
define the set of all natural numbers N as a particular subset of the set of all
real numbers.
After having defined the natural numbers, it is easy to define the rational
numbers.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
Worlds Fair, an enterprise with the inception and inauguration of
which he had much to do.
General Strong was in the prime of a splendid manhood when
failing health admonished him that he must seek rest and a change
of climate. Accordingly on the 14th of March last, he sailed from
New York to join his wife and daughters in Europe. Traveling by easy
stages he reached Florence, Italy, where the end came suddenly,
and at least to his thousands of friends in the United States,
unexpectedly on the 10th of April. His remains were brought back to
the land of his nativity and to his former home in Chicago. From
thence they were carried by the comrades of former days and the
devoted friends of his later years to his last resting place in
Graceland cemetery, where he sleeps peacefully, wrapped in the
national colors which he so bravely defended in his young manhood.
At the obsequies of General Strong the fact was made apparent
that a man had passed away whom a great busy community, felt
called upon to honor, and the tenderest tributes of love, respect, and
admiration were laid on his grave. Said one who paid tribute to his
character and worth as a man and patriot: “It is befitting to preserve
in memory and hand down to the generations something about a
man who has helped to make citizens heroic soldiers, and to render
possible the triumph of liberty and manhood. While his was a
beneficent existence of many manly years, it seems to the view of
man that he died before his time. It is but just to say of him that his
conduct as a soldier, sprang from a truly patriotic, martyr spirit which
enabled him to dare unflinchingly, with a smile to the green earth,
and a smile to the bright heavens, and a cheer to his companions.”
Of striking appearance, pleasing manners and great personal
magnetism, he drew around him a circle of friends which was
composed of many of the men best known in public and official life,
in the world of trade and commerce, and in the various professions.
These men were drawn to him by his geniality, his candor, his
culture, his broad liberality and his unswerving fidelity to his friends.
He was of that chivalrous nature which was regarded as the
distinguishing characteristic of the Preux Chevalier in the days of
knight errantry and with it all, was the practical, level-headed man of
affairs.
A brave soldier, a good citizen, a courteous gentleman, General
Strong was a splendid type of American manhood.
Howard Louis Conard.
 MISTAKES IN HISTORY—THE
PILGRIMS NOT PURITANS BUT
SEPARATISTS.
Among the wrong impressions and mistaken ideas which have
been conveyed by writers and speakers during the last two hundred
and fifty years, and even down to the present day, there are,
perhaps, none more prominent and important than those relating to,
and connected with, that most interesting body of people and most
important event in our history—the Pilgrims and their coming to
America. In no instance that is now called to mind, of the settling of
a country or planting of a colony, have the motives and purposes of
the colonists been so misrepresented and falsified, and so much
fiction made to hang about their acts, as in the case of the Pilgrims.
It is proposed in the present article to deal with two main ideas—
who were the Pilgrims, and what were their objects or motives in
coming to this country.
With regard to the first idea there seems to be great and
unpardonable ignorance and confusion, for they were not Puritans
nor Persecutors, as the latter became both in England and early in
America, but were Separatists. Much has been done by Mr. Benjamin
Scott, Chamberlain of the City of London, towards setting this matter
right and putting it in proper shape before the public, and, he in
turn, obtained much information through the studies and
investigations of Dr. Waddington. The latter says: “The ignorance still
existing on this subject is almost incredible. We find men of
education who seem to have no exact information respecting the
Pilgrim Fathers. Quarterly reviewers, members of Parliament,
Christian divines and ecclesiastical historians speak of them with the
same complacent disregard of facts.” The church presumed to
dictate as to what kind of christians the Puritans should be, and the
form and manner of worship they should adopt and be governed by.
To these requirements there was a partial submission.
The Pilgrims separated from them because of this church
imposition, and so became “Separatists.” Parliament declared, in
Mary’s reign, the Pope to be the spiritual head of the church in
England. When Elizabeth ascended to the throne 1558, she was
confronted with this state of affairs respecting these matters, and
issued a proclamation forbidding any change in the forms of religion,
until they should be determined according to law. Thus it happened
that there was no freedom to worship according to conscience for
either Roman Catholics or Protestants. Elizabeth was opposed to
Popery, but she was just as vindictive toward Protestants who did
not shape their religious course and belief in accordance with her
standard and the law of the State.
This Act of Supremacy, which she caused to be passed soon after
she came into power, was not long after followed by the Act of
Uniformity, which required everybody to worship, not only as the
State directed, but also in the parish churches. Two years later came
the crowning act in the adoption of the Articles of Religion; and the
Church of England was established by the highest authority of the
realm, and then commenced separations and persecutions. There
were a few people, a small band, who found some errors yet left in
the wake of the Reformation against which they protested. They also
objected to any human power assuming that headship which they
claimed belonged alone to Christ, and also asked the privilege of
worshiping according to the simplicity of form and practice of the
primitive Christians. Minor questions, such as baptism and the like,
which have since given rise to divisions and sects, were not
considered, and this little band of people, together with the Roman
Catholics, were the only persons throughout England who objected
to the church as the law had established it. Accordingly they formed
themselves into distinct bodies, or associations, or churches, chose
their own teachers and determined their own affairs. They claimed
that the church was a spiritual association and should, therefore, be
separated from the world, and was amenable only to the laws of
Christ as given in the New Testament. Hence the name “Separatists.”
They were simple in their manners and conduct and morals, and all
these things rendered them unpopular and drew upon them the ill-
will and enmity of the church, which found plenty of reason and
many excuses and opportunities for persecuting them. There arose
at this period another party, some of whom were English reformers,
who had been driven from the country and had returned on the
ascension of Elizabeth, but were disappointed to find that religious
matters and laws had been settled and established.
Many of them however, accepted the change, including Royal
Supremacy, Uniformity of Worship and Articles of Religion. They
were nevertheless much dissatisfied, but hoped to effect still further
changes and reformations. But in this they failed. This as will be
seen, was a party within a party, a church within a church, or a party
within the “establishment,” and they were the “Puritans.” In other
words, the Protestants may be said to have been divided into three
classes. The High Ritualists, Puritans and Separatists. High Ritualists
claimed divine authority for the form of government, and the
ceremonial of the Church of England. The king, they claimed, was
the head of the church, as well as supreme in all civil matters and
had power and authority over persons and property. The Puritans,
on the contrary, believed none of these doctrines, although they
were as devoted to the Church of England as was the other party,
the High Ritualists, and the reforms they desired, they sought to
make from within the church. Separation they regarded as the
rankest kind of an offense, a terrible sin. To draw a comparison, or
to make an illustration—the Puritans were Episcopalians—the low-
church wing of that period. In another sense there was a difference
or distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims: The Puritans had
among their number, as influential persons, many of the nobility,
men of business, capitalists and educated, fashionable and
accomplished people. Indeed, during the entire reign of James I,
they formed a majority in the House of Commons, and no person
not a communicant of the Church of England could then sit in that
body.
From this body of Puritan Episcopalians sprang that company who
landed at Salem and settled at Boston in 1630, not the Pilgrims who
settled at Plymouth in 1620. The latter, the “Separatists,” renounced
the Church of England, and separated from it. They were likewise
socially from the humbler walks of life. Some of their number, it is
true, were persons of education, culture and refinement, but as has
been said, the great bulk were from among the common people,
without means, power or influence. Indeed, they sustained about
the same relation to other classes and denominations that the
Methodists, in their beginning, did to other religious denominations.
In short, they were persecuted by the Church of England by the
Puritans and by the Roman Catholics.
The Separatists, one and all, suffered every indignity, privation and
want, while many, among them Barrow, Greenwood, Dennis and
Penry, were hung. Others still were thrown into prison, and died
from neglect, hunger and cold. Others were permitted to leave the
country, but were informed that if they returned, their lives would be
the forfeit. Later on, this was even denied them, and their departure
from the country was forbidden. For these reasons, the Separatist
congregations fled secretly to Holland, and even in Holland the
Dutch shunned them, for they were afraid of offending King James,
whose good will and help they wanted. These “Separatists,” or
Pilgrims, therefore gradually disappeared from English soil, and from
the English mind, and in 1607, there remained in the kingdom only
one organized congregation of this kind, which was within the limits
of the little town of Scrooby. Here their pastors were Richard Clifton
and John Robinson, the latter a somewhat rash and inconsiderate
young man, but they depended chiefly for material aid and favors,
as well as sympathy and encouragement, on William Brewster,
afterwards their “venerated elder.” He was postmaster, and his duties
included the charge of public travel, which necessitated a house of
large dimensions, and in this building he permitted the “Separatists”
to worship weekly, lodging and entertaining them. About this time
there appeared another person, a mere lad, who became interested
in, and identified himself with, the Pilgrims, and who subsequently
occupied a useful and prominent position in their history.
This was William Bradford, who came from a very respectable
family in a neighboring village. They were not long, however, to
remain here in peace and unmolested quiet. Their retreat was
sought out and persecutions anew visited upon them, and there
remained only two alternatives, the one to yield a hypocritical
conformity and submission, or to become exiles from their native
land, from “the graves in which their fathers slept.” They accordingly
gathered themselves together, and under the leadership of the
youthful and brave Bradford, fled to Amsterdam—Brewster, Robinson
and Clifton remaining behind, like the marshal of Napoleon’s grand
army, to guard the rear, when, having seen all safely on their
journey and beyond the reach of the “King’s hirelings,” they followed
on and soon joined those who had gone before. They were
disappointed however, and failed to find peace and quiet and rest,
for at Amsterdam there were two societies or congregations of
English worshipers who had fled their country, but they were in
continual dissensions with each other, and rendered the situation of
the little band of “Separatists,” uncomfortable and unpleasant. There
remained therefore, nothing for the latter to do but to “move on,”
which they did, forty miles distant to the “goodly and pleasant city”
of Leyden. Here at last they found peace and quiet and freedom of
worship, but were not without perplexities and disadvantages.
They had to depend upon manual labor for subsistence, which
employment they sought from the Dutch, of whose language they
understood not a word. In their own land they had been chiefly
agriculturists, but many of them now became manufacturers and
mechanics of various kinds. Thus were they, by the force of
circumstances, fortunate in learning trades which were useful to the
community in after years in their home beyond the sea. Bradford
engaged in the silk dyeing business and Brewster set up a printing
office. It could not be expected that this condition of affairs, even,
although a great improvement, would long satisfy the spiritual and
intellectual longings and demands of such men as the Pilgrims. Their
life, on the whole, was far from satisfactory. True their numbers had
more than doubled, grown from one to over two hundred, yet their
lot here seemed to have been cast in a hard place. Their children
were losing English habits, character and language. Sunday, as was
generally the case in European countries, was a day of recreation
and was given up to merry-making and the playing of games.
Influences, associations and examples were unfortunate, and all
these things caused serious apprehensions in the minds of the
Pilgrims. The old adage, too, that “a rolling stone gathers no moss,”
was strikingly illustrated in their case. Years and life were passing
rapidly away.
They had, many of them, become physically weakened from the
hardships they had endured and were nearing old age, Brewster
being sixty at the time of the landing, and they had the very natural
feeling and desire to “lay up something for a rainy day.” After much
thoughtful and prayerful consideration, in view of all these facts and
circumstances, they decided to emigrate to America.
At this period in their lives, from their wanderings, misfortunes
and persecutions, nearly every member of the Separatist-Pilgrim
Company had become reduced to the direst straits. Indeed, this had
been the common lot and experience of a large majority of them
from their youth up, and when it was determined to seek homes in
the new world, they were without means to secure their passage.
To obtain this, they made the best terms and conditions that they
could with the London merchants.
The conditions were hard, but they were in the power of the
merchants and there was no alternative. Concerning this Mr.
Cushman who, acted as agent in the matter, says: “Although they
(the proposals) were very afflictive to the minds of such as were
concerned in the voyage, and hard enough for the poor people that
were to adventure their persons as well as their estates,” they had to
be accepted. Had they not done so, Mr. Cushman adds, “the whole
design would have fallen to the ground.”
 At the end of the seven years all the original and acquired assets
of the colony, were to be equally divided between the merchants
and the Pilgrims. So practically, it cost the Pilgrims seven years of
severe labor to get from England to America. Nor was this all. There
had been disaffection among the merchants and some had
withdrawn from the co-partnership, leaving an accumulation of
indebtedness. Those remaining friendly to the Pilgrims, wrote the
latter: “As there has been a faction among us more than two years,
so now there is an utter breach and sequestration. The company’s
debts are no less than 1400 pounds, and we hope you will do your
best to free them. We are still persuaded that you are the people
that must make a plantation in those remote places where all others
fail. We have sent some cattle, clothes, hoes, shoes, leather etc., for
Allerton and Winslow to sell as our factors.”
And these goods the Pilgrims were to purchase at an advance of
seventy per cent. Thus matters went from bad to worse, until the
Pilgrims, seeing no way of “making out” of the difficulty became
convinced that the best thing they could do was to break up the co-
partnership and wind up its affairs. With this in view, they sent Miles
Standish to London to “oblige them to come to a composition.” He
took up 150 pounds of the indebtedness at the rate of fifty per cent.
Matters were in bad shape in England for the colonists, and
among disheartening things, Standish found that both Robinson and
Cushman had died. Finally, late in 1626, Mr. Allerton went over and
through influence brought to bear on the merchants, the latter
agreed to sell out to the colonists for 1,800 pounds, in payments of
200 pounds a year, beginning with the year 1628. Here were nine
years more of hard labor before they could hope to be clear of the
indebtedness incurred for their passage money with living expenses
added. An arrangement was at last affected by some of the leading
men of the colony with a few staunch friends in London to take the
trade of the colony for six years, pay off the debts and send the
remainder of the Leyden church over. The six years would end in
1632, a period of twelve years from the time of landing. It was also
the length of time spent by the Separatists in Holland after they left
England. What a history! Almost a generation in time, and crowded
full of trials, hardships, discouragements, sickness and death.
The Pilgrims doubtless were a kind, tender hearted and
sympathetic people naturally, and their surroundings and
experiences in life would tend to render more marked these
characteristics. They as clearly were a christian people and deeply
religious, and it could hardly be expected that the Reformation of
the sixteenth century, setting men’s minds and thoughts religiously
free, would result in aught else than great diversity of opinion, and
that beliefs and doctrines would be sharply outlined and stoutly
maintained; Luther died but a few years before Brewster was born,
and Melanchthon, his coadjutor and ally, lived for several years after.
Bradford and Robinson were born before religious feeling and ardor
had become cooled. It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise, when
we find Robinson taking a hand in the discussions of the day. This
suited his nature; he seemed to be in his “element,” for he was yet
young, only 32, when the “Separatists,” went from Scrooby into
Holland.
Lest it be thought that the opinion we have expressed concerning
Robinson was incorrect and unjust, the language is here given of an
eminent, English writer and speaker: “It was with the Calvinists that
Robinson took part, entering into the subject with all the learning of
which he was master and all the ardor of a man of his temperament,
and still not 40 years old. It is to be regretted that, like all the other
polemics of his day, his zeal betrayed him into intemperate warmth,
and the adoption of harsh, acrimonious and uncharitable
expressions. It must be remembered that the most vehement,
violent and vituperative language used by the most ultra bigot of our
times is as mild as milk, compared with the controversial tone of the
theological disputants of the seventeenth century.” Bradford also
says of Robinson that “he was a man of quick and sharp wit, an
acute and expert disputant, very quick and ready;” and Winslow
adds: “’Tis true, I confess, he was more rigid in his course and way
at first than towards his latter end,” when the “fiery vehemence of
youth” had given place to the cooler judgment and conservatism of
riper years. But Robinson did not come to America with the Pilgrims,
nor at all, for he died at the age of 49, in 1625.
He had expected to come, but a majority of the flock at Leyden
decided to remain at that place instead of emigrating, and he
concluded to remain also.
Leaving Robinson out, who had been obliged in early manhood, to
resort to daily labor for a living, it is very doubtful if the desire for
freedom in religious worship was the main motive for their
emigrating.
Bradford was thirteen years younger than Robinson, and but a
mere boy when the church at Scrooby was formed, and only
nineteen at the removal to Leyden. He was a noble youth (and a
nobler man) and was easily influenced and led by Brewster and
Robinson. The whole company went to Leyden expecting probably to
spend their lives there, and engaged in various business callings and
occupations. On coming of age, Bradford inherited some money.
This he sank in unfortunate business operations. Brewster had been
postmaster at Scrooby from 1594 to 1607, when he resigned,
presumably because his sympathy with the “Separatists” was
obnoxious to the government, which, in all probability, would have
removed him had not he himself deprived it of that pleasure, by
vacating office, following which action he immediately went to
Holland.
It will be borne in mind that the Pilgrims, as a congregation or
church, were not the first Separatist body or organization, for one
John Smith had organized a company of these people as early as
1602, at Gainsborough, numbering some three or four hundred, and
in 1604 went with them to Amsterdam. This was undoubtedly one
reason for the Pilgrims going to that place under Brewster and
Bradford, instead of going to any other place. It is believed that
Robinson had little or no connection with our Pilgrims until after
Brewster left the post-office, and they were about to leave Scrooby.
On the way to Amsterdam, and later, on the way to and at Leyden,
accessions were made to the company, so that before the final
emigration their numbers had reached between two and three
hundred. These latter additions were from the common or laboring
class, who, in all probability, joined in the wake of the movement,
thinking to better their worldly condition.
On this point another English writer has said: “The vicinity of
Scrooby was an agricultural district, having a few villages scattered
about, each with its church and perhaps an esquire’s seat, but the
population was for the most part employed in husbandry, an
occupation little congenial to the growth of extreme opinions in
either religion or politics or of voluntary sacrifices to a severe
estimate of duty, or a supposed call of conscience.” The same writer,
speaking of those who were even prominently identified with the
movement, says: “Neither Bradford nor Brewster, nor the divines
who were concerned in the movement, were of the eminent of the
earth, about whom there is curiosity widely extended through the
country which gave them birth, and concerning whom nothing is
thought unimportant. It may even be said that they were but
inconsiderable persons at home, and their consequence has
undoubtedly arisen out of the grand results which, unforeseen by
themselves, have ensued on their great resolve. So that there is
scarcely anything to be told of their early history besides those very
small facts which make the history of men who are of but small
account in the midst of a large and advanced population.” It has also
been said that the Pilgrims, as we speak of them, would scarcely
have been heard of had it not been first for Robinson and Brewster
and Bradford, and there can be no doubt that the great majority of
them came to this country that they might find homes and advance
their worldly circumstances.
An American of high historical standing and learning has said:
“Here lay a new world for the most part unoccupied, inviting
colonization, and it was as natural for men to come and settle here
as to embark in any other enterprise in life. The only wonder is that
the work of colonization was not begun earlier and pursued by
thousands rather than by hundreds.” This colonizing, this settling
and developing a country, the desire to own the roof under which
one sleeps “raise the personal importance and dignity of the subject
or citizens,” and “it can never be too well understood that the
generations of men sow and plant for their successors.” It seems to
have been an entire and pushing necessity that these people should
get away from Holland in order to secure a comfortable living and to
make any provision for their posterity. Bradford says: “The country
(Holland) was hard and many were discouraged. Grim and grizzled
poverty was coming on them as an armed man, old age was coming
upon them and no amelioration of their condition came with it.” That
they should come to America, and for the reasons given, seems
quite reasonable and natural when it is remembered that Captain
Smith and others, returning to England, had expressed the opinion
that the fisheries on the New England coast might be made
profitable. And we know that this was one of the first industries
engaged in by the Pilgrims. Smith states that in 1616 four ships of
London and two of Plymouth and Sir Richard Hawkins were again in
the fishing waters in the vicinity of Massachusetts and Maine.
Early in 1620, also, six or seven sailing vessels set out for the
western country for the same purpose and visited the country about
the harbor where the Pilgrims landed in December following.
That there was a Providence in their coming here is altogether
probable. That the same Providence reached out and extended its
ruling and benignant hand on the journey and after the arrival is
certain.
“There is no doubt, a great over-ruling power in all human affairs,
but our concern (the emigration) is with second causes, and it is to
be believed that we often deceive ourselves when we attempt to
recover general principles from which things remarkable in the acts
of men have sprung.” “And if we conclude that these people had
mistaken the path or duty, or had imposed upon themselves a
severer burthen than God ever intended for them, there it still a
heroism in their conduct which forbids us to regard them with
indifference, nay rather, which will call forth the sympathy of every
generous mind.”
 There has been neither design nor desire, in what has been said,
to reflect on the character of the Pilgrims, or to detract from the
high fame and renown to which they are justly entitled. No one has
more appreciation of their virtues or greater veneration for their
memories than the writer. A train of thought only has been followed
which led in a channel that seems to be altogether reasonable and
intelligent. When a genealogist thought to please Napoleon by telling
him that his descent could be traced from some ancient line of
Gothic princes, he replied that he dated his patent of nobility from
the battle of Monte Notte (his first victory.) The Pilgrims inherited
their patent of nobility and derived their claim to immortality by the
excellence of their example and the beauty and usefulness of their
lives.
D. W. Manchester.
 WERE THE DUTCH ON MANHATTAN
ISLAND IN 1598?
It will admit of but very little dispute that Verrazano in 1524, and
Gomez in 1525, anticipated Henry Hudson by several decades in the
discovery of New York Bay and the Hudson River. There is also a
claim for previous discovery however, put forward in behalf of the
Dutch. One confident historian of the Metropolis starts out bravely
and unhesitatingly with the assertion that the Dutch were here as
early as 1598; but he gives no authorities from whence he had
gathered this startling piece of information, yet before one has read
thirty pages of such a well-known work as Dr. E. B. O’Callaghan’s,
“History of New Netherland,” the source of the statement is plainly
indicated, and fortunately, also the opportunity for a careful
weighing of the testimony supporting it.
 MANHATTAN ISLAND IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

Dr. O’Callaghan refers his readers to a Dutch document in the

State Archives at Albany, discovered by Mr. Brodhead at the Hague,
copied by him for his collection of documents and translated and
published in that invaluable store-house of historical material, the
“Documents relating to the Colonial History of the State of New
York,” vol. I, pp. 149, et seq. Here we read: “New Netherland ... was
first frequented [explored] by the inhabitants of this country
[Holland] in the year 1598, and especially by those of the Greenland
Company, but without making any fixed settlements, only as a
shelter [resort] in the winter. For which purpose they erected on the
North [Hudson] and South [Delaware] Rivers there, two little forts
against the incursions of the Indians. A charter was afterwards, on
the 11th of October, 1614, granted by their High Mightinesses to
trade exclusively to the newly discovered countries.”
Without discussing the nature or merits of this document itself just
now, we will first weigh the value of its statement. The Hollanders
who “frequented” Manhattan Island in 1598, were in the employ of a
Dutch “Greenland Company.” Now it would seem to be of some
importance for the establishment of the interesting fact under
discussion, that there be brought forward some evidence of the
existence of such an association as this Greenland Company. For
certainly if no trace of its existence can be found, this would cast
serious doubt upon the exploits of its servants in these waters.
We have to begin with announcing the lamentable fact that after a
thorough search of every imaginable source of information, we have
been unable to discover the existence of a Dutch Greenland
Company prior to the year 1600. The works of Dutch historians, both
ancient and modern, were carefully scanned, but all in vain. We
began with a modern writer, N. G. Van Kampen, sometimes called by
his fond and admiring countrymen, the Dutch Macaulay. He wrote an
elaborate and extensive work of four or five octavo volumes on “De
Nederlanders buiten Europa” (The Netherlanders outside of Europe),
giving an eloquent as well as exhaustive review of those splendid
achievements in various portions of the globe, which resulted in the
establishment of the great Colonial Empire of the Dutch, even at this
day second only to that of the English.
But there is found no mention of a Dutch Greenland Company or
its doings either in these volumes or in Wagenaar, who lived in the
eighteenth century and issued more than one monumental
publication, or in Bor or Van Meteren of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. These older writers let no event or
transaction or institution of any importance escape them. They were
not afraid of multiplying their volumes and therefore not at all
deterred from noting even the minutest affairs that came within their
ken, as they laboriously proceeded from year to year. But they are all
strangely silent about this apocryphal company whose mariners were
in the habit of sheltering themselves on Manhattan Island before
1600.
But now it is only fair to indicate how the tradition may have
originated that there ever was such an organization as the
Greenland Company. An appreciation of any reasonable grounds for
its origin, will help us understand better how the mistaken statement
came to be made, and to see that it was a mistake. There did exist
in Holland a “Noordsche Compagnie” or Northern Company and
there exists the most abundant and indubitable evidence that the
terms “Northern Company” and “Greenland Company” were used
interchangeably, and were both applied to the former association.
This company was at first confined to the merchants of the Province
of Holland, who had received their charter from the States-General,
after the approval and endorsement of such a measure by the States
of Holland. In 1617, the charter was renewed, but the merchants of
Zeeland wished for the same privileges and the States-General
granted a charter to a Zeeland “Northern Company” in May 28,
1622. Turning to the “Groot Placcaet Book,” Vol. I, Cols. 673, 674,
we discover the two names in question in curious but instructive
juxtaposition. The title of the act has Noortsche Compagnie, while in
the body of the act we read Groenlandtsche Compagnie. In this
same year (Dec., 1622), the Zeeland and Holland Companies were
combined into one general or national “Northern Company,” but the
act granting a larger charter mentions only the above name both in
the title and in the body of it. It is to this Company that Moulton
refers in his “History of New York” (p. 362) when he makes the
assertion that “the Greenland Company was created in 1622.” He
places this association on an exact level with the East and West
India Companies.
“Thus the Northern Seas, Asia, Africa and America, were
partitioned to three armed associations, possessing powers nearly
co-extensive with those of the Republic.” The company chartered in
1622, (as we have seen), can not properly be classed as equal in
importance or influence or power with the two great commercial
associations named in one breath with it by Mr. Moulton. And we
have seen also, that it did not officially bear the name he gives it,
although that name might be interchangeable with the true one in
the case of subordinate companies. Yet even this is not the case
with the charter creating the original company confined to Holland
Province alone, where there is no mention of the name “Greenland”
in either the title or the body of the document. Lastly there is this
significant circumstance about that earliest charter of any “Northern
Company;” it bears date January 1614, and distinctly states “that no
such company had ever been chartered before.”[12] This therefore
settles the question as to whether it could possibly have been men
in the employ of this company, miscalled the “Greenland Company,”
who habitually sought relief from the rigors of an Arctic winter on
the shores of the Hudson River in the year 1598. This could hardly
have been when it was not erected or chartered until January 1614.
In the second place, if frequent or habitual visits to Manhattan
Island were made by the Dutch in and after the year 1598, we are at
a loss to comprehend the entire lack of recollection of such visits on
the part of the Indians thereabouts. It is insisted on more than once
in various accounts that both the vessel and the persons of its crew,
were objects of boundless wonder to the natives, as they beheld the
“Half-Moon” resting upon the waters of the bay or gliding up the
river. De Laet, one of the earliest to write on Hudson’s discovery,
publishing his “Nieuwe Wereld,” (New World) in 1625 and basing his
statements on those of Hudson’s own journal, perhaps citing his very
words, speaks as follows: “So far as they could judge and find out,
there had never been any ships or Christians in this region before, so
that they were the first who discovered this river and sailed up so
far.” Such a declaration might need to be received with some
suspicion, if the author had intended to maintain a claim of the first
discovery for the Dutch as against other nations. But he could have
had no reason to suppress the circumstance of the visits of the
Dutch themselves to our river, in 1598. If that had been patent to De
Laet he would have been only too glad to mention it, as only
increasing the validity of the Dutch claims to those regions by the
right of first discovery. He could have had no particular object in
glorifying the Englishman Hudson’s exploit at the expense of the
sailors of an exclusively and undoubtedly Dutch Greenland Company.
But returning to the Indians, we notice in Vander Donck’s celebrated
“Vertoogh,” written at New Amsterdam and published at the Hague
in 1650, another arraignment of their poor memories. “Even at the
present day those natives of the country who are so old as to
recollect when the Dutch ships first came here, declare that when
they saw them, they did not know what to make of them. Some
among them when the first one arrived, even imagined it to be a fish
or some monster of the sea.” Now the Indians might indeed have
forgotten a visit made so long ago as 1524 or 1525, if Verrazano and
Gomez really did discover the Hudson then, making but a brief stay
and a rapid examination of its banks at best, but an habitual resort
to its shores, or even one winter spent on the island at its mouth, in
forts built to repel their attacks, only eleven years before Hudson
came among them, the Indians could not possibly, it would seem,
have so utterly forgotten in 1609.
But we will now give our attention more particularly to the
document which asserts that the Dutch were on Manhattan Island as
early as 1598. What was the nature of it, and to what degree of
credence is it entitled? Mr. Brodhead in the explanatory heading
which he usually prefixes to the documents in his collection states
that it is a report made in 1644 by the Chairman of a Committee or
Board of Accounts, appointed by the directors of the West India
Company. Several documents were placed in his (the chairman’s)
hands for the purpose of enabling him to furnish to the company a
succinct review of events connected with the origin of the settlement
on Manhattan Island, and with its progress up to that date. The
writer begins with the story of the Dutch and their forts in 1598.
Immediately after this the official historian glides easily into what he
evidently either considers himself, or wishes others to believe, is the
next stage in the history of the Manhattan Colony; namely this: “a
charter was afterwards on the 11th of October 1614, granted by
their High Mightinesses.” As if nothing of importance had happened
between 1598 and 1614!
 The question therefore arises, if this was meant for history in
1644, why was it written so imperfectly? It could not be that the fact
of Hudson’s discovery, so vitally connected with the origin of
Manhattan Colony, had been completely forgotten at that time, much
less that after a careful examination of all the papers available to
directors of the West India Company, the chairman of their
committee should not have come across the record of that discovery.
How then did he happen to pass it over in utter silence in his official
report? Was it purposely suppressed? If so, what could have been
the motive for this singular proceeding?
We think we can readily divine what the motive was, when we
read in more than one English writer what use that nation contrived
to make of the fact that the discovery of the Hudson River was
achieved by an Englishman. Peter Heylin, who wrote before the
surrender of New Netherland in 1664, remarks: “With him [i. e.
Hudson] the Hollanders, in 1609, compounded for his charts and
maps; but they were hardly warm in their new Habitations,” when
Argall, Governor of Virginia, disputed their title to this region, which
was looked upon as part of Virginia territory. The latter advanced
this ingenious argument in support of his claim; “that Hudson, under
whose sale they claimed that country, being an Englishman and
licensed to discover those northern parts by the King of England,
could not alienate or dismember it (being but a part or province of
Virginia) from the Crown thereof.” This matter of a “sale” by Hudson,
which was illegal, and the subsequent “right” of the English to New
Netherland, is brought out again in a book written nearly a century
later, or long after the problem which was unsolved in Heylin’s time
—how to get the Dutch out and the English in—had been solved by
Colonel Nicolls in 1664. In this book, William Smith’s “History of New
York” (1757), we read, scarcely without a smile: “Henry Hudson, an
Englishman, according to our authors[13] in the year 1608 [sic],
under a commission from the King, his master, discovered Long
Island, New York, and the river which still bears his name; and
afterwards sold the country, or rather his Right to the Dutch. Their
writers contend that Hudson was sent out by the East India
Company in 1609 to discover a northwest passage to China. It is
said however, that there was a sale; and that the English objected to
it, though they for some time neglected to oppose the Dutch
settlement of the country.”
Now we can readily appreciate why the Dutch West India
Company might have a distinct and deliberate object in not being
too exact in their history of Manhattan Colony. They would naturally
be very shy of giving occasion or encouragement to a rival nation on
the alert to press a claim avowedly made, however unjust, to
territories entrusted to the Company’s care and government. It
would to say the least have been very impolitic to give countenance
to it in one of their own official papers. About twelve years later the
directors, writing to Stuyvesant, while commending him for the
reduction of New Sweden, at the same time remonstrated with him
for having made a written agreement with the Swedish Commander.
And they then put into so many words the shrewd policy which we
suggest they followed in the present instance, saying; “What is
written is too long preserved and may be produced when not
desired, whereas words not recorded are in the lapse of time
forgotten, or may be explained away” (O’Callaghan’s “New
Netherland,” vol. II. p. 327). If Argall on the spot, and only a few
years after the settlement; if Heylin in a book written and published
before 1664, could make so much of Hudson’s nationality in the
matter of his discovery, so that more than a hundred years after that
event, sober historians could still cooly repeat the story of England’s
supreme right, and quite cast aside the claims of the Dutch, then it
may well have been considered in 1644 that it would be a dangerous
concession to have even made an allusion to Hudson in a committee
report. Under these circumstances, finding at home a possibly
prevalent and convenient rumor about the Greenland Company and
its vessels in New York bay and river, without any intention to
deliberately falsify, the chairman of the committee simply
incorporated the statement under discussion in his report. For
business purposes, on a paper prepared by business men and not by
historians, this may have been good enough history; but being
preserved in this documentary form, and read in an age eager for
documentary evidence and too ready to give undue weight to
unpublished and original matter, the assertion derived an importance
which it does not really deserve, and was not intended to possess.
And so entirely unsupported is it by other proofs, or by the facts of
history, that even the documentary character of this evidence has
not prevailed to deceive wise and judicious investigators. It is clear
that it did not commend itself as quite trustworthy for historical
purposes to Dr. O’Callaghan. In quoting it, though it own assertion is
entirely positive, he introduces its language by the cautious phrase,
“it is said.” Brodhead, whose researches brought the paper to light,
also deals very gingerly with it, holding it off at arms length, so to
speak, and saying: “it needs confirmation”—and indeed, it certainly
does.
Daniel Van Pelt.

FOOTNOTES
[12] Groot Placcaet Book, I. Cols. 669, 673, 676.
[13] The italics are ours.
 A FAMOUS POLITICAL CONTEST IN
ILLINOIS.
HON. HENRY H. EVANS.

The most interesting political contest which has taken place in the
State of Illinois since the days of Lincoln and Douglass, was that
which ended with the election of General John M. Palmer to the
United States Senate, on the 11th day of March, 1891. The contest
was of historic interest because it elevated to the Senate, a man
who had long been a conspicuous figure in American politics, and
who had for many years cherished an ambition to occupy a seat in
the Upper Bench of the national Legislature. It was of interest also
because it gave to the Democratic party of Illinois, for the first time
in many years, a representative in the United States Senate. It was
moreover an intensely interesting and exciting contest—and greater
interest attached to it on this than on any other account—because it
developed a crisis in the political affairs of the State.
It is no harsh criticism of the Republican management of the State
campaign of 1890, in Illinois, to say that the campaign was lazily
conducted. At the Democratic Convention, held some months before
the election, General John M. Palmer had been formally endorsed as
the choice of his party for United States Senator, and his adherents
at once entered upon a determined and aggressive campaign. The
result of this spirited Democratic campaigning, of Republican apathy,
and of disturbing “side issues,” was, that when the roll of the Thirty-
seventh General Assembly was made up, it was ascertained that
there were 101 Democratic members elect, 100 Republicans, and
three representatives of the Farmers’ Alliance organization.
This being the political status of the body which was to choose a
United States Senator, it was evident that the three independent or
Farmers’ Alliance members held the balance of power as between
the two great political parties. These three legislators thought they
saw before them great opportunities for the advancement of their
interests, and starting a political revolution. Once before it had
happened in the history of the State, that a little band of five
legislators—the representatives of the “Anti-Nebraska” party—had
placed in the field a candidate for United States Senator, of their own
choosing, and in full sympathy with their political views, and at the
end of a long contest that candidate had been triumphantly elected,
and a new political party had been brought into existence.
The triumvirate of the Thirty-seventh General Assembly of Illinois,
hastily jumped to the conclusion that there was to be a repetition of
history, and that what the “Anti-Nebraska” legislators had
accomplished in 1885, could be accomplished by the representatives
of the Farmers’ Alliance in 1891.
When the Legislature convened they accordingly placed in
nomination as their candidate for United States Senator, Alanson J.
Streeter, a farmer by occupation, whose large wealth had enabled
him to take up politics as a diversion, and whose views had been of
a sufficiently variegated character, to enable him to claim political
kinship with any of the existing partisan organizations.
General Palmer was already in the field as the Democratic
candidate for Senator, and the Republicans named ex-Governor
Richard J. Oglesby as their nominee. Balloting began on the 20th
day of January and continued from day to day—when the Legislature
was in session—until the 11th of March, when the contest ended as
already stated.
The attitude of the Farmers’ Alliance members, from start to finish,
toward the Republican minority, was in effect, that they presented to
them the alternative of electing the Alliance nominee with
Republican votes, or of allowing the Democratic nominee to be
elected by Alliance votes. The proposition was one as humiliating to
the great political organization to which it was made, as it was
inconsistent in those who made it. Nevertheless, it was adhered to
and all counter-propositions were rejected. Republican diplomacy
was tried without result, the Alliance members refusing to vote for a
leading representative of their own interests when he was put
forward as the Republican nominee.
As the contest was prolonged, the feeling between Republicans
and Democrats became more intensely antagonistic, and a point was
finally reached where some of the Republican leaders apparently
determined to defeat General Palmer at any cost. To do this they
determined to throw the support of the entire Republican
membership of the Legislature to Streeter, thereby securing his
election by a majority of two votes. Principles were for the time
being lost sight of by those who favored this movement. Political
trusts were relegated to the region of barren idealities, and rank
heresies were to be swallowed without a grimace for the sole
purpose of compassing the defeat of an old time political adversary.
That the dominant party of the third State in the Union was not in
a sense, committed to the vagaries of a nondescript political
organization, and made directly responsible for the acts of one of its
most erratic representatives, was due to the sound judgment and
positive convictions of a very small number of Republican
Legislators, of whom Hon. Henry H. Evans, representing the
Fourteenth Senatorial District, was the acknowledged leader.
While Colonel Evans had long been prominent in the politics of the
State and had had much to do with shaping its legislatures for a
dozen years or more, no other event in his life has brought him so
conspicuously before the public as the determined stand which he
took against, what could not have been regarded in the future, as
anything else than a sacrifice of the political integrity of his party.
While those who were engineering this movement may have been
mistaken in their calculations, they frequently affirmed that they
could deliver to the Alliance candidate for Senator, the entire
Republican vote of the Legislature, provided Senator Evans would
consent to have this vote so recorded, and it is reasonably certain
that his colleagues of the opposition were largely influenced by him.
The pressure brought to bear on him, to induce him to become a
party to the combine with the Alliance, was of the most powerful
kind, but to entreaties, arguments and threats alike, he returned the
same answer, the gist of which is contained in a brief statement of
his intentions, to which he gave utterance at one of the numerous
Republican caucuses, at which this matter was considered. On that
occasion he said: “I want to say to this caucus, that I will never vote
for any of these men for United States Senator, no matter what this
caucus may think. I am a Republican, and I am for a Republican. I
was elected and sent here to vote for a Republican for United States
Senator, and that I will do to the end of this contest. But I do not
think we should humiliate the glorious old Republican party of
Illinois, by bartering away our independence for the sake of sending
to the Senate a political nondescript for whose official action we
must be responsible.”
This was the ringing declaration of an honest and courageous
representative of well defined political principles. It was a declaration
of his purposes from which he did not deviate during the contest,
and no public servant ever made a better record for consistency and
a strict observance of his obligations to his constituency.
The prominence which he attained in this honorable contest, and
through public services previously rendered, have made him one of
the prominent figures among the public men of Illinois, and the story
of his life becomes interesting.
Born at Toronto, Canada, March 9, 1836, he has been essentially
the architect of his own fortune. His father, Griffith Evans, and his
wife, (Elizabeth Weldon), were both natives of Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, being descendants of families ante-dating the
Revolution—so that, although born on Canadian soil, Colonel Evans
is of thoroughly American ancestry.
His father was a millwright by trade, who with his wife and family
settled at Aurora, Illinois, in 1841. Colonel Evans was next to the
eldest of ten children. The father was an industrious and intelligent
mechanic who had more or less to do with the erection and
equipment of several large mills in the neighborhood of Aurora, but
he never accumulated any considerable amount of property, and his
children had to depend mainly upon their own resources.
Col. Evans received his education in the public schools of Aurora,
grew to manhood there, and then married Alice M. Rhodes, a lady of
English birth and parentage. Soon after his marriage, he engaged in
the restaurant business and continued in this business until
September, 1862, when he enlisted in the One Hundred and Twenty-
fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. He was mustered into
the service at Springfield, Illinois, went into action first at Jackson,
Tenn., participated in the siege of Vicksburg and in successive
campaigns, being mustered out of service at the end of three years
days from the date of his enlistment.
Immediately after his retirement from the military service, he
returned to his old business in Aurora. Enterprising, shrewd and
capable, his business expanded and he became the proprietor and
then owner of the leading hotel of the city, and one of its most
enterprising and public spirited citizens. He became largely
interested in real estate, laying out several large additions to the city,
and realizing handsome profits from his investments. In 1882, he
organized the Aurora Street Railroad Company, took charge of the
construction of the road, and pushed to completion, an enterprise
which has since been developed into one of the most perfect electric
railroad systems in the West. He was also the projector of the Joliet
and Aurora Northern Railroad, an enterprise with which he was most
actively identified up to the date of its going into operation, and at a
late date as one of its leading officials. In everything calculated to
contribute in any way to the growth and prosperity of Aurora he has
taken a most active interest, and as a natural consequence of this,
coupled with a cheering geniality, he has always enjoyed great
popularity.
His political life began in 1876, when he was elected an Alderman
for one of the wards of Aurora. In the fall of the same year he was
elected a member of the State Legislature. After serving one term in
the House of Representatives, he was elected, in 1880, a member of
the State Senate, and has been twice re-elected since that time. As
a member of the General Assembly, he has become recognized as a
careful and conscientious legislator, with a large stock of practical
ideas, and a capacity for energetic and persistent efforts, which have
made his services peculiarly valuable to his constituents. While
serving his first term in the Legislature he introduced and succeeded
in having enacted into a law, the bill providing for the establishment
of a State Soldier’s Home in Illinois—an institution which does great
credit to the State.
He was also the author of the law under which the National Guard
is now organized, a measure which met with determined opposition
at the time of its introduction. Despite the opposition however, it
became a law, and the wisdom of the act has since been
demonstrated on numerous occasions.
In recognition of his services in perfecting the organization of and
rendering effective the State Militia, Governor Shelby M. Cullom
made him a member of his military staff, with the rank of colonel. He
was appointed to the same position on the staff of Governor
Hamilton and Governor Oglesby, and is now serving on the staff of
Governor Fifer.
The Police Pension bill was another of the important measures
which had his successful advocacy.
The life of Col. Evans strikingly emphasizes the marvelous
industry, tireless energy, and broad spirit of enterprise that are to-
day so characteristic of the American man of affairs.
W. H. Maguire.
 EDITORIAL AND HISTORICAL
NOTES.
The present (November) number of the Magazine of Western
History, which is the first number of the new volume (Vol. XV)
appears under a new name which will more adequately describe its
present character.
The title chosen—“THE NATIONAL MAGAZINE—A Journal Devoted
to American History—” is in keeping with the enlarged scope and
purpose of the publication. When it first came into existence, its
proposed mission was to gather and preserve the history of that
great West which lies beyond the Alleghanies, and while that labor
has been pursued with results that have enriched American history,
the boundaries have been gradually enlarged until the whole country
has become its field of research, and readers and contributors are
found in every State and territory.
The Magazine has become National, and it is believed that the
present name will be accepted as more appropriate than the one
that has been outgrown.

The new name defines, perhaps with sufficient fullness, both

scope and purpose, but for the sake of clearness we add that it is
proposed to confine our interest exclusively to the field of American
History, and whatever directly illustrates it. By this we mean not
alone or chiefly the history of our remote past with its discoveries,
its early settlers, and its struggling colonies, but the history as well
of the present century—the planting of colonies by railroads, the
evolution of States, the founding of cities, the building up of a
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com