Skip to main content

Timeline for Weak* continuity of positive parts

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 31, 2016 at 4:04 comment added TaQ @Nik Weaver: There are mathematicians (a) that do not care whether a particular result holds in ZF without AC, or whether it requires use of AC, and there are ones (b) that do care. I agree with you in that my answer has "little content" to mathematicians of type (a). Here Bill Johnson wrote: "What I do not know is whether the result depends on the axiom of choice." So it seems that you and he are of different type in this respect.
May 30, 2016 at 20:13 comment added Nik Weaver You're right about Gram-Schmidt, good point. I will stand on the rest of my comment that there is little content here.
May 30, 2016 at 19:31 comment added TaQ And, by the way, it does not matter, if it lead, since we only need to construct a vector in $\ell^{\,+\infty}\,$.
May 30, 2016 at 19:01 comment added TaQ @Nik Weaver: (1) The first $e_n$ outside span$\mathcal F$ need not be orthogonal to span$\mathcal F$, and so it has to "modified" to be such in order to have the properties required. I have given, or rather sketched, the details which are needed if one does not want to use AC to get the net with the required "negative" properties. (2) Gramm−Schmidt does not lead outside $\ell^{\,1}$ since it just gives linear combinations of the original vectors, and $\ell^{\,1}$ is a vector space.
May 29, 2016 at 22:22 comment added Nik Weaver It doesn't seem to work, though ... when you Gram-Schmidt you could get outside of $l^1$.
May 29, 2016 at 22:22 comment added Nik Weaver This just looks like a complicated way of saying "in Bill Johnson's construction, `choose' $z_{\mathcal{F}}$ by letting it be the first $e_n$ outside of ${\rm span}(\mathcal{F})$, modified to have the desired properties."
May 29, 2016 at 10:15 history answered TaQ CC BY-SA 3.0