1617-257/HW-5: Difference between revisions
From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''General grading scheme''' |
|||
Two problems graded out of 15 points each. |
|||
'''J.A.Z. graded problem 1 from section 8'''. |
|||
'''J.I. graded problem 5 from section 8'''. Many employed the inverse function theorem (IFT) inappropriately here (injectivity is a requirement for the statement of the IFT - otherwise, the conclusion that the function in question is invertible doesn't make sense in the first place). Among other things, one could have either delved into a proof of the IFT or argued that the function is locally injective so that one can employ the IFT locally. |
'''J.I. graded problem 5 from section 8'''. Many employed the inverse function theorem (IFT) inappropriately here (injectivity is a requirement for the statement of the IFT - otherwise, the conclusion that the function in question is invertible doesn't make sense in the first place). Among other things, one could have either delved into a proof of the IFT or argued that the function is locally injective so that one can employ the IFT locally. |
||
Revision as of 17:17, 1 November 2016
General grading scheme
Two problems graded out of 15 points each.
J.A.Z. graded problem 1 from section 8.
J.I. graded problem 5 from section 8. Many employed the inverse function theorem (IFT) inappropriately here (injectivity is a requirement for the statement of the IFT - otherwise, the conclusion that the function in question is invertible doesn't make sense in the first place). Among other things, one could have either delved into a proof of the IFT or argued that the function is locally injective so that one can employ the IFT locally.
