Timeline for Valuation topology vs modified valuation topology
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2023 at 17:24 | comment | added | Maths1999_ | Is there a pdf for the book mensioned above? | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | ACL | But they differ for $G$ trivial (discrete vs coarse), which may be why Alling considers them both. Maybe this unifies some results. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 5:53 | comment | added | user05811 | I believe you are right. See for example, Efrat, Valuations, Orderings, and Milnor K-Theory, AMS 2006, Section 8.1, p. 75, which gives both bases for the topology. The question whether the field can be ordered or not does not seem to be relevant, as far as I can see. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 5:23 | comment | added | Chilote | You're right. That's why I'm considering a non trivial group $G$. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 4:51 | comment | added | Fan Zheng | Now I see, but there is a bug in your inequality when $g=0$. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 4:18 | comment | added | Chilote | Here every element of a ball is a center of the ball, so that shouldn't be an issue. I have updated the post: actually the families of balls defined there form basis for their topologies. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 4:15 | history | edited | Chilote | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Dec 3, 2016 at 3:50 | comment | added | Fan Zheng | Neighborhoods are not necessarily centered. | |
| Dec 3, 2016 at 0:49 | history | edited | Chilote |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 3, 2016 at 0:34 | history | asked | Chilote | CC BY-SA 3.0 |