Timeline for How should one think about non-Hausdorff topologies?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 2013 at 14:27 | answer | added | Lee Mosher | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 21:28 | answer | added | Joseph Van Name | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 1, 2010 at 13:02 | history | edited | Mark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 108 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2010 at 12:59 | vote | accept | Mark | ||
| Oct 30, 2010 at 14:40 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | Cool question! How, for example, am I supposed to think about topologies (like the unitary dual of a discrete group $G$) where elements are in the closures of singletons comprised of other elements...I work with these, but am certainly not "used to" it! Is my "net" thinking off on this? Thanks for asking this! | |
| Oct 30, 2010 at 0:08 | comment | added | Darsh Ranjan | Thank you! I've been thinking of asking essentially the same question for a while. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 23:39 | comment | added | Daniel Barter | Atleast on $\mathbb{A}^n$, I like to think of the open sets as the sets on which regular functions do not vanish. The fact that there are not enough regular functions to make the Zariski topology hausdorff just says to me that algebraic varieties are more like holomorphic manifolds than differential manifolds | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 20:47 | answer | added | Terry Tao | timeline score: 45 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 20:40 | answer | added | Buschi Sergio | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 19:43 | answer | added | Beren Sanders | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 18:03 | answer | added | David Carchedi | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 15:58 | answer | added | Martin Brandenburg | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 14:11 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 55 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 14:08 | answer | added | Tom Goodwillie | timeline score: 10 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 12:11 | answer | added | Pietro Majer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 12:09 | comment | added | Dan Petersen | Regarding the Zariski topology, I think about it as what's left if you forget "most" of the open sets that really "should" be there. This point of view makes it clear why it is not Hausdorff and it fits in both with the classical topology on complex varieties and the étale topology and its variations. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 11:27 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 19 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 11:17 | history | asked | Mark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |