Timeline for Is it meaningful to work on convergencies, integration, etc. on the Zariski topology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2014 at 20:08 | history | reopened |
Yemon Choi Frank Thorne Joseph O'Rourke Gil Kalai Karl Schwede |
||
| Apr 21, 2014 at 14:18 | comment | added | Lucia | Another one from MSE which seems (at least to me) to formulate the question more clearly: math.stackexchange.com/questions/53852/… | |
| Apr 21, 2014 at 7:49 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | Possibly relevant question on math.SE | |
| Apr 20, 2014 at 17:09 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | See also meta: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1650/…. Maybe OP can clarify what is meant by: the Zariski topology is meaningful as being a "topology", rather than being a set which sufficies the axioms of being a topology. Is there a understandable example which views the Zariski topology as a "topology". What is the notion of topology here that is significantly different from a set equipped with a topology? | |
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:25 | vote | accept | Haullab | ||
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:22 | vote | accept | Haullab | ||
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:25 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:57 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 21, 2014 at 20:09 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:19 | history | closed |
Andy Putman Stefan Kohl♦ Lucia Andrey Rekalo Qiaochu Yuan |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 19:39 | answer | added | Denis Nardin | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 18:09 | answer | added | Will Chen | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 17:52 | comment | added | Kolya Ivankov | As for integration (which is more "measure theory" rather than "topology", as pointed out by @QiaochuYuan) You may look for Motivic Integration. | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 17:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:20 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 17:09 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | The Zariski topology isn't there to talk about convergence, but to talk about sheaf theory. This is seen as a natural generalization of sheaf theory as used in complex analysis, as are more exotic generalizations like the étale topology (which isn't a topology in the classical sense). | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 16:55 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:10 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 16:50 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | The Zariski topology isn't Hausdorff, so convergence doesn't behave reasonably. You need a measure to talk about integration. | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 16:39 | history | asked | Haullab | CC BY-SA 3.0 |