Timeline for Is the category of Banach spaces with contractions an algebraic theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2010 at 18:18 | history | edited | Yemon Choi |
added bsp tag
|
|
| Jan 5, 2010 at 17:34 | answer | added | Todd Trimble | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 17, 2009 at 8:51 | history | edited | Andrew Stacey | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added encouragement to read the paper linked in Yemon's answer.
|
| Dec 17, 2009 at 8:46 | vote | accept | Andrew Stacey | ||
| Dec 11, 2009 at 19:23 | answer | added | Yemon Choi | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 17:49 | answer | added | Mike Shulman | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38 | answer | added | Leonid Positselski | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 10:57 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | The norm can be recovered exactly via a simple supremum computation, but this doesn't feel very "categorical". | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 10:04 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | Well, if you've got the metrizable topology, and you've got the module structure, doesn't that give you the norm up to equivalence? | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:53 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | You don't lose the topology since the "underlying set" is the unit ball and that contains all the information about the topology that you need to know. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:18 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I suspect that we will lose the topology, so this algebraic theory will not contain all of the information of the Banach space. | |
| Dec 11, 2009 at 9:11 | history | asked | Andrew Stacey | CC BY-SA 2.5 |