Timeline for Regular Borel measures and the measure of a singleton
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2018 at 0:12 | vote | accept | André Porto | ||
| Oct 26, 2018 at 0:11 | vote | accept | André Porto | ||
| Oct 26, 2018 at 0:12 | |||||
| Oct 21, 2018 at 1:44 | answer | added | André Porto | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 21, 2018 at 1:41 | history | edited | André Porto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2018 at 15:50 | answer | added | Dirk Werner | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 5:08 | vote | accept | André Porto | ||
| Oct 26, 2018 at 0:11 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2018 at 5:04 | history | edited | André Porto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1247 characters in body
|
| Oct 5, 2018 at 4:35 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 4:22 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Okay, it just sounded weird to talk about the variation of a positive measure. | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 4:21 | comment | added | André Porto | No, "measure" here means "positive measure". | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 4:14 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | I guess "measure" here means "signed measure"? Is there an obvious reduction to positive measures? Anyway, I would suppose the contrary; then by regularity every point has an open neighborhood of measure $< 2/3 + \epsilon$. By compactness you can find a finite cover by such neighborhoods. It seems like one ought to be able to obtain a contradiction eventually. | |
| Oct 5, 2018 at 3:56 | history | asked | André Porto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |