Timeline for Do separable $C^*$-algebras form a set?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 20, 2010 at 20:06 | vote | accept | Kolya Ivankov | ||
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:40 | vote | accept | Kolya Ivankov | ||
| S Nov 20, 2010 at 20:06 | |||||
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:34 | comment | added | Andreas Thom | @Kolya: Ok, no problem. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:20 | answer | added | Stefan Geschke | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:14 | comment | added | Kolya Ivankov | I'm sorry for this. I just have found that I know the answer myself, and so I've changed the question after that. By this time I still haven't seen Your answer - it was just because I haven't scrolled the page down. Perhaps, I should have given a reference as soon as I have seen the answer You have posted. I truly confess in this fault of mine. Also, I have accepted Your answer as soon as I have seen it. If You can somehow look in the log of the post, You will see that the last modification just precedes the acceptance of your answer. Once more, I'm sorry, and I didn't meant any dishonest. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 18:40 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I have edited the question back towards the original form, and added a note to give credit to Andreas' remarks rather than merely copying them | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 18:40 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited so that answer gives credit where it is due
|
| Nov 20, 2010 at 18:23 | comment | added | Andreas Thom | I am surprised that you changed the question quite a bit after my answer. What is your intention? If you do not believe the correctness of the answer, the appropriate way would be to put a comment below the answer, ask for more details or point out some problem. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 16:47 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Well, in light of Andreas's answer, you changed your conjecture from "no" to "yes", and yet you are unconvinced by his answer? There is no flaw in the reasoning, and I believe Andreas's answer (which in light of your edit will now look very peculiar!) should be accepted. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 16:30 | vote | accept | Kolya Ivankov | ||
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:40 | |||||
| Nov 20, 2010 at 16:30 | comment | added | Kolya Ivankov | Thanks, Qiaochu. Yes, it should be isomorphism classes. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 16:29 | comment | added | Kolya Ivankov | Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with terminology, but I think it is the case. In fact I just need to know, which types of $C^*$-algebras (up to a iso, for instance) form a set. | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 13:43 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Do you mean isomorphism classes of separable C*-algebras? | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 13:38 | history | edited | Kolya Ivankov | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Probable answer added
|
| Nov 20, 2010 at 13:35 | comment | added | Péter Komjáth | I guess, this can also be formulated as: do there exist separable $C^*$-algebras of arbitrarily large cardinality? | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 13:35 | answer | added | Andreas Thom | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 20, 2010 at 13:29 | history | asked | Kolya Ivankov | CC BY-SA 2.5 |