Timeline for A fact about finite-dimensional manifolds I fear does not hold for Frechet manifolds (what's new?)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2012 at 1:00 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | You'd better send this counterexample back to the fiery chasm from whence it came... ;-) | |
| Jun 26, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Hmm, yes, F_1 and F_2 do seem to be isomorphic in my case. Well spotted! | |
| Jun 26, 2012 at 14:57 | comment | added | Vidit Nanda | +1 for the "whence" in that final sentence... | |
| Jun 26, 2012 at 13:11 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | Yes, that's why I put my first comment in - I suspected that there would be extra information that would exclude this situation, such as $F_1$ and $F_2$ being isomorphic. | |
| Jun 26, 2012 at 12:12 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Hmm, that \emph{is} an easy counterexample. The problem is, it doesn't feel like a global counterexample, only a local counterexample (to quote Lakatos). That is to say, what I thought was the essence of my problem, and which suffices in the finite-dimensional case, isn't all the information I have. But at least I know that I do have to use more than just the submersions as I mentioned here. | |
| Jun 26, 2012 at 12:00 | history | answered | Andrew Stacey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |