bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 1 year, 9 months |
seen | yesterday | |
stats | profile views | 78 |
Nov 19 |
accepted | Relative interior and dense subsets |
Nov 19 |
comment |
Relative interior and dense subsets
@Kallus: you want to give this as an answer? |
Nov 18 |
comment |
Relative interior and dense subsets
But your second argument seems to be plausible... |
Nov 18 |
comment |
Relative interior and dense subsets
I think you are mixing up interior with relative interior. The relative interior of a non-empty convex set is always nonempty!!! |
Nov 18 |
revised |
Relative interior and dense subsets
edited body |
Nov 18 |
asked | Relative interior and dense subsets |
Jun 6 |
awarded | Enthusiast |
May 20 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
What do you mean by universal property?Can you specify a bit more what you mean by compatibility in the first part? |
May 17 |
accepted | Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures |
May 16 |
awarded | Commentator |
May 16 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
This is really beautiful!The only thing I have still to think about is the existence of such a sequence $(\mathbb P_n){n\in\mathbb N}$... |
May 16 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
@Davide : Does a weka*-compact substet necessarily have to be totally ordered? |
May 15 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
@George Lowther : do you have a proof for this? So the answer given by Davide Giraudo is not true when the maps $Z$ are bounded? |
May 14 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
@Gerald Edgar: "...the usual way to define it is to use continuous $Z$." Maybe you realized that we are working on measurable spaces and there is no notion of continuity... |
May 14 |
comment |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
I forgot boundedness! sorry |
May 14 |
revised |
Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures
added 12 characters in body |
May 13 |
awarded | Scholar |
May 13 |
asked | Existence of dominating measure for weak*-compact set of measures |
Feb 15 |
comment |
When is a sequentially closed cone, closed?
But if you assume that the space is bornological, than this will surely impose some restriction on the seminorms which generate the topology, since not any locally convex space is bornological, but the topology of any locally convex space can be generated by some seminorms... |
Feb 14 |
comment |
When is a sequentially closed cone, closed?
If you can write down the seminorms "explicitely", what condotions do you have to impose in order that thes space is bornologic? Maybe my question is not well defined... |