As titled, could you please modify it as possible as you can,

or just modify one or two sentence,

to make the following email sounds more

I love your book xxx xxx xxx (a mathematical book).

Recently I find some minor errors in it (maybe I am wrong), which I would like to discuss with you below.

Page 18, Exercise 1.3.5(c): I guess sup(cA) should be inf(cA) since A is only bounded above and c<0.

Page 20, proof of Theorem 1.4.3: Two problems ocurr with the inequalities (3) and (4).

but it does not get mentioned before.

This might impare the rigorous flavour of this book.

Second, Since

Regards, xxx xxx xxx

or just modify one or two sentence,

to make the following email sounds more

**normal**and**polite**? Thanks a lot for your energy! OseeI love your book xxx xxx xxx (a mathematical book).

Recently I find some minor errors in it (maybe I am wrong), which I would like to discuss with you below.

Page 18, Exercise 1.3.5(c): I guess sup(cA) should be inf(cA) since A is only bounded above and c<0.

Page 20, proof of Theorem 1.4.3: Two problems ocurr with the inequalities (3) and (4).

**First,**the well-order property of natural numbers seems to be used to get**to be the smallest natural number greater than***m**na,*but it does not get mentioned before.

This might impare the rigorous flavour of this book.

Second, Since

**could be an integer, so these two inequalities kind of do not make sense unless we assume both a and b are real numbers which are not rational.***na*Regards, xxx xxx xxx

OseeAs titled, could you please modify it as possible as you can,I think you should add in at the beginning that you have used the book and found it good and helpful.

or just modify one or two sentence,

to make the following email sounds morenormalandpolite? Thanks a lot for your energy! Osee

I love your book xxx xxx xxx (a mathematical book).

However, recently I find [found what I think are] some minor errors in it (maybe I am wrong), which I would like to discuss with you below.

Page 18, Exercise 1.3.5(c): I guess[think] sup(cA) should be inf(cA) since A is only bounded above and c<0.

Page 20, proof of Theorem 1.4.3: Two problems ocurr with the inequalities (3) and (4):

First,the well-order property of natural numbers seems to be used to getto be the smallest natural number greater thanmbut it does [was/has] not get [been] mentioned before.na,~~This might impare the rigorous flavour of this book~~.Second, Sincecould be an integer, so these two inequalities kind of do not make sense unless we assume both a and b are real numbers which are not rational.na

I would be very interested in your comments on these, and shall look forward to hearing from you.

Regards, xxx xxx xxx

Comments

Feebs11