Timeline for Finite Topology vs sigma Field
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 10:35 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Yes, of course, but $\mathcal{R}$ was already assumed to be an equivalence relation, in particular symmetric. But maybe the double implication is more clear. Done. Thank you | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 10:35 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
m
|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 3:28 | comment | added | LSpice | Don’t you want your definition of $s{\mathcal R}t$ to have a biconditional, as in $s \in A \iff t \in A$? | |
| Jun 2, 2010 at 20:25 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Note that to define the family of sets A<sub>s,t</sub> I needed a countable choice; I suppose it's unavoidable in order to prove the statement. | |
| Jun 2, 2010 at 20:18 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2010 at 8:51 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 14 characters in body; added 8 characters in body; added 1 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2010 at 8:46 | history | edited | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 125 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2010 at 8:39 | history | answered | Pietro Majer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |