Changes on web

CHANGES

@@ -1,45 +1,2 @@
-<li>Instead of the functional notation for plugging vectors into
-differential forms, use the angle bracket pairing notation that is more
-standard and since we don't really use this much at all, there is no reason to
-have a less standard notation.  This affects one place in chapter 1,
-exercise 4.4.3, and one place in appendix C.
-<li>The notation
-\(\C \otimes T_p M\) is changed to the more
-common \(\C T_p M\) which also avoids a slight abuse of notation.
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>Lemma 2.3.9, the statement about the Levi form doesn't really make sense
-if \(M\) is not a boundary, so change the statement to explicitly say that
-the inside is "above" the \(M\) in the new coordinates.
-Also explicitly mention this at the end of the proof.
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>At the beginning of section 2.4, give a reference to the one-variable
-book as not every student may have had a treatment of harmonic and
-subharmonic functions in a one-variable course.
-<li>Add hints to Exercise 2.4.8.
-<li>Change Proposition 2.4.5, to be about the sub-mean-value property 
-for all small enough discs (which is really the best way to prove
-the original statement in the first place),
-leaving the original statement as an "In particular".
-That also
-<b>changes Exercise 2.4.11</b> by really making it a bit easier as it
-gives a way to do it (and change the hint to that exercise too).
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>In Example 2.5.4, put a square on the norm of \(z\) as that makes the
-computation easier.
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>In Theorem 2.5.6, add part (iv) which is just the conclusion of the
-second version of the Kontinuitatssatz as that just follows from the proof
-directly with no extra work.
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>In Theorem 2.5.6, make part (ii) less wordy: "U is Hartogs
-pseudoconvex".  I mean the definition is just above the theorem!
-<li>Mark Exercise 2.6.1 as Oka's lemma to make the connection to the "proof"
-above clear.
-<li><b>Change Exercise 4.4.1</b> to ask also to prove the Leibniz rule
-(which easily follows from the first part and the real Leibniz rule), but
-this is good to understand for the computations later in the section.
-Thanks to Richard Lärkäng for the suggestion.
-<li>Add Leibniz rule to Appendix C.
-<li>Simplify the wording of some of the theorems in Appendix E.
 
 See https://www.jirka.org/scv/changes.html for older changes.