Timeline for Morphisms of Banach spaces
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2011 at 22:38 | comment | added | Theo Buehler | @Emerton, @Yemon: Since this topic was brought up, I think if anyone is to be credited for this notion then it should be A. Weil who, as far as I know, introduced them in his book on integration in topological groups in the mid-thirties. | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Seconding Emerton's comment: in categories with kernels and cokernels (and hence images and coimages) I have seen strict morphisms defined as those $f$ for which the canonical map from Coimage(f) to Image(f) is an isomorphism. (I came across this in work of Schneiders and Prosmans, but I don't know where the term originated.) | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 12:53 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Ezra, As a somewhat related terminological remark, I think that Bourbaki (in his book Topological vector spaces) uses the terminology strict for a morphism with closed image. I don't know if this continues to be standard terminology for current researchers on archimedean Banach spaces, but I can say that it is standard for number theorists working with $p$-adic Banach spaces. Regards, Matt | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 12:26 | history | edited | Thierry Zell |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2011 at 9:08 | comment | added | Matthew Daws | In Helemskii's work on Banach (Co)Homology, this is the terminology he uses. I would consider it standard, in the sense that I'd use it, but I think I'd always be tempted to define what was meant. Theo's answer suggests that it's not standard if your audience is sufficiently large. | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 8:34 | answer | added | Theo Buehler | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 24, 2011 at 7:04 | history | asked | Ezra Getzler | CC BY-SA 2.5 |