Timeline for What is enough to conclude that something is a CW complex (part II)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:38 | history | edited | Thomas Kragh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:32 | comment | added | Thomas Kragh | I have now rewritten the question to contain the comment about compact Hausdorff in the assumptions before the question. This is more natural to me. | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:29 | history | edited | Thomas Kragh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 283 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:15 | comment | added | Michael Benfield | But anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the boundary of e has to be attached to stuff in X, and that does not happen in your construction, so it doesn't make a CW complex considering e as an open cell. Right? | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 18:04 | comment | added | Michael Benfield | It is a CW complex, but does it follow that it meets his additional criteria? It has to be a CW complex using the partition into cells he described. | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:26 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Uh, if X' is homeomorphic to a CW complex, it is a CW complex. | |
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:22 | history | edited | Thomas Kragh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Assumptions needed
|
| Mar 25, 2010 at 17:09 | history | asked | Thomas Kragh | CC BY-SA 2.5 |