Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with metric-spaces
Search options not deleted
user 44086
A metric space is a pair $(X,d)$, where $X$ is a set and $d:X \times X \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfies the following conditions for all $x,y,z \in X$. (Symmetry) $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$. (Identity of Indiscernibles) $d(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$. (Triangle Inequality) $d(x,y)+d(y,z) \geq d(x,z)$.
5
votes
1
answer
981
views
sets without perfect subset in a non-separable completely metrizable space
Suppose $X$ is a completely metrizable (but not separable) space. Suppose $D$ is a Borel (actually $F_{\sigma}$) subset of $X$. Is there any logical relation between the following statements?
[1] $D …
- 51