Timeline for Bijective function on a dense set
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | vote | accept | FelipeG | ||
Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | vote | accept | FelipeG | ||
S Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | |||||
Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | vote | accept | FelipeG | ||
Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | |||||
Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | vote | accept | FelipeG | ||
Nov 1, 2011 at 3:49 | |||||
Oct 31, 2011 at 12:39 | answer | added | Maurizio Monge | timeline score: 10 | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 11:49 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Joel, I understand from the text that $f$ splits into $f_{|D}:D\to D $ which is bijective and $f_{|X\setminus D}:X\setminus D\to X\setminus D $ which is surjective. | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 11:05 | answer | added | Sergei Ivanov | timeline score: 8 | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:47 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yemon, no, I guess not. This question is more interesting! | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:40 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 2 | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:28 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/73719/… | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:27 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Joel: is it obvious that one can `symmetrize' the examples in the question you link to so as to apply to the present question? | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:16 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | nice question... why should we close it? | |
Oct 31, 2011 at 8:01 | answer | added | ccarminat | timeline score: 2 | |
Oct 30, 2011 at 22:32 | answer | added | KP Hart | timeline score: 2 | |
Oct 30, 2011 at 18:30 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 4 | |
Oct 30, 2011 at 18:28 | history | asked | FelipeG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |