Timeline for Proper topological spaces
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 5:56 | answer | added | Not Mike | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 17:31 | answer | added | Rachid Atmai | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:51 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Joel: It's fine. As I wrote in my edit summary. Forcing ordering can be confusing sometimes. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:48 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | OK, thanks for the edit---sorry to be so nitpicking.... | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:45 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Joel: I following the "universal convention" and not the "Jerusalem convention". I always have, and always will. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:44 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yes, that is what I wrote. So why did you reverse the order? This seems wrong even in light of the Isreali convention on $\geq$ vs. $\leq$ for forcing. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:37 | history | edited | Asaf Karagila♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Ordering a forcing poset is confusing. It's not my fault, I was educated in Jerusalem!
|
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:35 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila♦ | @Joel: The smaller open set is stronger. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 14:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I think you want to force via $\subseteq$ rather than $\supseteq$. That is, $p\Vdash q$ if and only if $p\subseteq q$. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 12:32 | comment | added | YCor | Just to mention that there's a widely used notion of proper metric space (this means that closed bounded subsets are compact), and that this is a priori unrelated. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 11:50 | history | asked | Asaf Karagila♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |