Book talk:Gerald B. Folland/Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and their Applications

Would it not be more practical, and more visible, to have the errata link at the top of the page, before the contents? — Lord_Farin (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

All depends on how visible we want the errata to be.

The reason I started hiding them under a link was purely because of the situation with Wells's Interesting Numbers books. I had a pang of conscience, and I regretted parading all $170+$ errors that we found (he doesn't deserve that). So I made them less obtrusive by hiding them.

Up to you -- depends how important you think it is to draw immediate attention to such errata. But if you have a better idea how to present them, feel free to implement it.

Incidentally, if Folland doesn't actually present the error-strewn proof in question, and it was in fact cut out of whole cloth by the original contributor, then maybe it does not warrant an errata page on here after all. I don't know this work so I can't say. --prime mover (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. But I do think there is potential value in $\mathsf{Pr} \infty \mathsf{fWiki}$ listing the mistakes we found, for future reference. The best way to present that is probably something that we still need to figure out.

As you figured by my creating the mistake page Folland did actually print the error in question (albeit slightly more nuanced than what the contributor made of it). — Lord_Farin (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)