Timeline for the intersection of a sequence of measurable sets
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2013 at 15:03 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 8:02 | answer | added | Daniel Spector | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:06 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 4, 2013 at 15:03 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:06 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:06 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:05 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:06 | |||||
| S Nov 15, 2012 at 2:05 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:05 | |||||
| S Nov 15, 2012 at 2:04 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| S Nov 15, 2012 at 2:05 | |||||
| Nov 15, 2012 at 2:04 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| S Nov 15, 2012 at 2:04 | |||||
| Nov 14, 2012 at 19:56 | answer | added | Robert Israel | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 19:21 | comment | added | Lasse Rempe | Since the answer is negative even when the sets $\Omega_j$ are open, it is hard to imagine an assumption where the statement holds and which does not imply that each set contains a ball of some fixed diameter. However, perhaps I am wrong! | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 18:06 | answer | added | juan | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 17:30 | history | edited | Goldstern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling
|
| S Nov 14, 2012 at 16:34 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| Nov 14, 2012 at 16:34 | |||||
| Nov 14, 2012 at 16:32 | vote | accept | Weeson Dorne | ||
| S Nov 14, 2012 at 16:34 | |||||
| Nov 14, 2012 at 16:16 | history | edited | Weeson Dorne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
$\epsilon$ is a constant.
|
| Nov 14, 2012 at 15:32 | answer | added | Lasse Rempe | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 15:29 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | As far as I understand it, the question is not whether the property holds for every such sequence $\Omega_j$ (which is false), but under what additional conditions it holds. | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 15:16 | answer | added | Gerald Edgar | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 15:14 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | I see no reason to close it, since it is not known to non-specialists. More on juan's comment in an answer. | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | juan | This is well known. If the sets are independents on a probability space there is no such subsequence. | |
| Nov 14, 2012 at 13:59 | history | asked | Weeson Dorne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |