Timeline for Minimal conditions for the exponential law for compact-open topologies
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 13, 2016 at 13:01 | history | suggested | Sigur | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
TeX correction
|
| Apr 13, 2016 at 12:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 13, 2016 at 13:01 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2010 at 19:44 | vote | accept | trew | ||
| Sep 26, 2010 at 11:14 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I'm still having trouble understanding the question. I don't suppose you want the same conditions to apply to all three spaces X, Y, Z? If not, why do you expect a unique answer (you say the minimal conditions)? For example, by slightly strengthening a condition on X one could slightly weaken a condition on Y, so that the two sets of conditions are incomparable. (Finally, may I ask what is the motivation for demanding the compact-open topology, if some other conceptually similar but slightly different topology works?) | |
| Sep 26, 2010 at 1:26 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:53 | history | edited | trew | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 94 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:41 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | trew, I believe your question either in the more restricted sense that I wrote up and in the more general sense where you allow any map is an open problem. I might be wrong -- but I posed this question to Stephen Willard when I was an undergraduate and he thought back then it was an open problem. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:33 | comment | added | trew | thank you very much ryan!but other maps are welcome too!its also interesting to find counterexamples!I would be thankful to see some interesting ones. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:32 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | @Ryan and others, can the two spaces be homeomorphic but not through the usual map? | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:28 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I modified your question to be what I'm assuming you meant to ask -- in particular you did not specify the nature of the homeomorphism. I took liberty to specify the map that people generally like to be a homeomorphism. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 21:27 | history | edited | Ryan Budney | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
finish the question; added 1 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2010 at 20:43 | comment | added | trew | Sorry,but it wasnt important anyway. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 20:42 | history | edited | trew | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 55 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2010 at 20:41 | comment | added | André Henriques | I do not understand the last ten words of your paragraph. Please reformulate, so as to make this readable. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 20:40 | comment | added | trew | hi,of course. but in nearly every topology book i only can find the "=>",which is enough for most cases but im interested in a <=>. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 19:10 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Have you looked at the compact-open topology section in a textbook like Munkres? Your question is basically about the fundamental property of the compact-open topology which essentially every textbook treats. | |
| Sep 25, 2010 at 18:37 | history | asked | trew | CC BY-SA 2.5 |