<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="+1">Great work, thanks for taking care of this!</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Just abstractly speaking, it would seem very odd
to me to have a "complex analysis" directory without
integration. Complex integration and the Cauchy integral formula
are such basic tools in complex analysis that not including them
in a "complex analysis" entry would seem… unusual to me.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Perhaps "complex analysis prerequisites".<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">Manuel</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/11/2019 12:55, Lawrence Paulson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1ACEE097-CD06-4355-9975-673C95D65AB6@cam.ac.uk">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="">With a little help from Fabian, I managed to prove
the inverse function theorem and therefore to reduce somewhat
the theories involved in building Complex_Transcendental, which
can now be combined with Complex_Analysis_Basics. There are
still 25 ancestor theories. Arguably this material should be
moved to its own directory, Complex_Analysis. This development
would include quite a bit of basic topology but no integration
or measure theory.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">If we do this as the first step, the next step
should become clearer. I already think it might be based on
integration. Any thoughts or reactions?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<img apple-inline="yes" id="69CF505B-7E1D-457E-8641-7F04834011B5"
src="cid:part1.085F770C.168955FC@in.tum.de" class="" width="697"
height="1226"><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="">Larry</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>