Timeline for Existence or otherwise of a set of "sufficiently intricate" open sets
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2015 at 17:42 | history | edited | Sebastian Goette | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
integrated answer to http://mathoverflow.net/q/223925/70808
|
| Nov 18, 2015 at 13:56 | comment | added | Julian Newman | I've just asked my new question: mathoverflow.net/questions/223925/… | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 13:07 | comment | added | Julian Newman | Thank you; I certainly wasn't just going to replace my original question with the new one. Having your answer to my current version of the problem is by no means irrelevant for me. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 4:50 | comment | added | Julian Newman | Thank you very much for this. Now since posting the question, I've come to realise that for the problem I'm working on, I should take the sets $V_1,\ldots,V_n$ to be not just connected, but actually homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^d$! Do you have any thoughts as to whether, under this additional constraint, a vector $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with the stated property can exist (with $d \geq 3$)? [Or maybe I should post this as a new MathOverflow question?] | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 4:45 | vote | accept | Julian Newman | ||
| Nov 17, 2015 at 21:59 | history | edited | Sebastian Goette | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Now, a complete answer.
|
| Nov 17, 2015 at 18:46 | history | edited | Sebastian Goette | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 17, 2015 at 18:40 | history | answered | Sebastian Goette | CC BY-SA 3.0 |