Timeline for Are all Hawaiian Earrings homeomorphic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2017 at 0:14 | vote | accept | john mangual | ||
| S May 11, 2017 at 6:56 | history | suggested | Amir Sagiv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Latex instead of older math formatting
|
| May 11, 2017 at 6:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 11, 2017 at 6:56 | |||||
| Jun 23, 2014 at 0:56 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @MarkBell: This is one of those responses that is ridiculously not worth the wait, but: for me, simple connectedness and the fundamental group is algebraic topology, not general topology. I wouldn't want to argue for this: certainly many general topology texts, e.g. Munkres's end with a chapter on this material (I would say that they end with an introduction to algebraic topology...) This is just by way of explaining my ancient comment. | |
| Aug 10, 2010 at 22:17 | comment | added | Mark Bell | @Pete and Anweshi, I origionally came across the Hawaiian earring in generaly topology. It was given as an example of somthing which is compact, connected, locally path-connected but NOT locally simply connected (due to problems at (0,0)) i.e. as a counter example to the idea that locally path-connected implies locally simply connected. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 14:13 | comment | added | Anweshi | Yes that is true. Both the question and the answers given are well within general topology. But the only issue is that general topologists don't worry about this space. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 12:55 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | I think Anweshi's right in that the Hawaiian earring is not at all pathological from the viewpoint of general topology (hence not a probable source of counterexamples): it's a compact, connected, locally path-connected subset of the Euclidean plane. I make this point in the commentary in John Armstrong's blog (linked to in my answer below). However, this particular question is a question about general topology, right? | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 12:50 | comment | added | Anweshi | What counterexample in general topology did you use the Hawaiian ear ring for? I would like to know. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 6:05 | answer | added | Zavosh | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 2:57 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Right, but it is not necessary to study algebraic topology to determine the (general) topological properties of the Hawaiian earring and/or to use it as a counterexample in (general) topology. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 0:53 | comment | added | Anweshi | This is a comment about the tag. Nobody studies Hawaiian earring in general topology. The first encounter is when you study algebraic topology -- more precisely, the fundamental group. | |
| Jan 6, 2010 at 0:03 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
made the title more precise
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 23:53 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 23:52 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 20:50 | answer | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | timeline score: 42 | |
| Jan 5, 2010 at 20:46 | history | asked | john mangual | CC BY-SA 2.5 |