Timeline for Do constructible sets have Krull dimension?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 31, 2013 at 8:41 | history | bounty ended | Simone Virili | ||
| S Oct 31, 2013 at 8:41 | history | notice removed | Simone Virili | ||
| Oct 31, 2013 at 8:41 | vote | accept | Simone Virili | ||
| Oct 30, 2013 at 1:00 | answer | added | YCor | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 18:53 | comment | added | Simone Virili | @YvesCornulier: Yes, it would be very nice! | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 16:28 | comment | added | YCor | Most likely, for an arbitrary noetherian topological space, the lattice of constructible subsets and the lattice of closed subsets have the same (ordinal) Krull dimension. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 15:31 | comment | added | Simone Virili | I guess it depends on the order you take on your lattices (ordinary or reverse inclusion). I prefer that my lattice of closed subsets has the same dimension of the classical Krull dimension of the associated $\mathbb K$-algebra | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 15:10 | comment | added | Ramiro de la Vega | Isn´t it the other way around? The lattice of closed sets is Artinian and the lattice of open sets is Noetherian. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 14:43 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 4 | |
| S Oct 25, 2013 at 11:52 | history | bounty started | Simone Virili | ||
| S Oct 25, 2013 at 11:52 | history | notice added | Simone Virili | Canonical answer required | |
| Oct 23, 2013 at 10:21 | history | asked | Simone Virili | CC BY-SA 3.0 |