Timeline for Which topological properties are preserved under taking box products?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 22, 2015 at 6:58 | history | edited | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 126 characters in body
|
Jun 22, 2015 at 6:57 | comment | added | Dominic van der Zypen | Oh - that's right. I leave this (wrong) answer for "instructive purposes" and mark it as such. | |
Jun 20, 2015 at 21:22 | comment | added | Joseph Van Name | Dominic van der Zypen. The mistake began when you said "we can assume that $N((x_{i})_{i\in I})=\prod_{i\in I}N_{i}(x_{i})$." Here the $N_{i}(x_{i})$ depends on the entire function $(x_{i})_{i\in I}$ instead of the individual point $x_{i}$. Even though the notion of a $D$-space is a covering property like paracompactness, the notion of a $D$-space is hardly preserved under any constructions and is difficult to work with. | |
Jun 20, 2015 at 6:59 | history | edited | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
Jun 20, 2015 at 6:52 | history | edited | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 591 characters in body
|
Jun 20, 2015 at 6:52 | comment | added | Dominic van der Zypen | OK interesting... so I assume there is a mistake above in the argument? | |
Jun 19, 2015 at 21:04 | comment | added | Joseph Van Name | Dominic van der Zypen. That same paper that you referenced claims that not even finite products of $D$-spaces are $D$-spaces. In general, the notion of a $D$-space is not very well behaved. | |
Jun 19, 2015 at 7:20 | history | answered | Dominic van der Zypen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |