Skip to main content
added 88 characters in body
Source Link
paul garrett
  • 23k
  • 3
  • 86
  • 125

Perhaps it bears noting that, given a commutative topological ring $R$, the group $R^\times$ of units has natural topology given by the subspace topology under the imbedding $x\to (x,x^{-1})\in R\times R$. In particular, this is the coarsest that makes inversion continuous, etc.

(And from the adeles to the ideles this gives the correct topology, unsurprisingly.)

But, yes, this style of characterization was not the norm in those days.

Perhaps it bears noting that, given a commutative topological ring $R$, the group $R^\times$ of units has natural topology given by the subspace topology under the imbedding $x\to (x,x^{-1})\in R\times R$. In particular, this is the coarsest that makes inversion continuous, etc.

But, yes, this style of characterization was not the norm in those days.

Perhaps it bears noting that, given a commutative topological ring $R$, the group $R^\times$ of units has natural topology given by the subspace topology under the imbedding $x\to (x,x^{-1})\in R\times R$. In particular, this is the coarsest that makes inversion continuous, etc.

(And from the adeles to the ideles this gives the correct topology, unsurprisingly.)

But, yes, this style of characterization was not the norm in those days.

Source Link
paul garrett
  • 23k
  • 3
  • 86
  • 125

Perhaps it bears noting that, given a commutative topological ring $R$, the group $R^\times$ of units has natural topology given by the subspace topology under the imbedding $x\to (x,x^{-1})\in R\times R$. In particular, this is the coarsest that makes inversion continuous, etc.

But, yes, this style of characterization was not the norm in those days.