Skip to main content

Timeline for Is Furstenberg's topology useful?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 20 at 23:51 history edited LSpice CC BY-SA 4.0
Fürstenberg -> Furstenberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Furstenberg), while this is on the front page
Aug 31, 2021 at 13:27 comment added YCor A standard and more accurate name is "profinite topology".
Aug 31, 2021 at 12:19 history edited Martin Sleziak CC BY-SA 4.0
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Feb 6, 2014 at 12:34 history edited user9072
edited tags
Oct 19, 2010 at 11:15 answer added Greg Kuperberg timeline score: 10
Oct 18, 2010 at 10:35 history edited Charles Matthews CC BY-SA 2.5
downcase
Oct 18, 2010 at 8:03 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan
Oct 18, 2010 at 7:59 answer added S. Carnahan timeline score: 24
Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 comment added Christian Blatter Here is a version of Fuerstenberg's proof that does not mention topology: We argue about periodic subsets of $\mathbb Z$. The set of all numbers prime to a given $p$ is periodic and the intersection of two periodic sets is periodic. If there were only finitely many primes the set $\{-1,1\}$ would be periodic.
Oct 18, 2010 at 7:07 comment added Chandan Singh Dalawat As BCnrd pointed out in his comments to another MO question, the topology is the one inherited from $\hat{\mathbf Z}$.
Oct 18, 2010 at 6:42 comment added Gerhard Paseman For the particular topology on the integers, it seems unlikely, especially as most (non-topological) results about the integers assume little or nothing about that topology. I can imagine that an infinite product or some topological modification (something other than compactification) might produce interesting results. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.10.17
Oct 18, 2010 at 6:32 history asked I. J. Kennedy CC BY-SA 2.5