Timeline for Hausdorffness inheritance in topological groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2014 at 12:19 | comment | added | jmc | @MinimusHeximus — That is very generous. Thank you. | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 12:13 | comment | added | Minimus Heximus | You're answer is completely wrong, but if you add local compactness to $\mathcal R$, It may be completely correct according to a theorem due to Ellis. Good point for me, why I +1. | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 10:24 | history | edited | jmc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Adds warning that the answer is incorrect.
|
| Mar 22, 2014 at 9:00 | comment | added | jmc | Hmm, you are very right! I don't know what made me think this is enough. Excuse my stupidity. | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 8:50 | comment | added | Minimus Heximus | Let me be seriously displeosed too! There are examples which show the intersection of two compatible topologies is not necessarily compatible. you have proved inverse, and left (right) multiplication are continuous. While continuity of the 2-variable multiplication function needs a serious proof. | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 8:43 | comment | added | Kevin Ventullo | For showing compatibility, why is it enough to show that $gU$ is open for all $g$ and $U^{-1}$ is open? For instance, if I take an abstract infinite group and put the cofinite topology on it, then both of those conditions are satsified, but the cofinite topology is not compatible. | |
| Mar 22, 2014 at 8:36 | history | answered | jmc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |