Timeline for Definition of Connected Subspace
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2010 at 9:23 | comment | added | David Corwin | Ok. I understand everything now. Just to point out, my main issue was that if we have two subsets of $X$, and their intersections with $Y$ are disjoint in $Y$, that doesn't mean they are disjoint in $X$. | |
| Jul 5, 2010 at 23:19 | history | edited | Tom Goodwillie | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2010 at 10:51 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Oh, oops. I misunderstood your post. Mea culpa. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 19:42 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | I have not defined the term "separation" and Munkres has not defined the term "separated". After defining what I mean by a pair of sets in a space being separated, as I did above, I could go on to say that a "separation" of a set $Y$ in a space $X$ means a separated pair of nonempty sets $A$ and $B$ in $X$ whose union is $Y$. This agrees with Munkres's definition. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 14:47 | comment | added | Willie Wong | But your definition of separated sets is weaker than the one Munkres is using. While yours is by all means a good definition, I don't think it will help the original poster with understanding what he read in Munkres' book. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 14:12 | history | answered | Tom Goodwillie | CC BY-SA 2.5 |