@RajeshD imagine that you've cutted off the north pole of the sphere - then you can unbend it in a plain sheet, so you can start with a plain sheet and bend it to a sphere without one point
IMO this plagiarist guy is a perfect example of how broken the rep system is. Contribute some basic number theory, some Hints and you'll eventually end up having 10k.
2
(reminds me of another user that isn't exactly reluctant to re-post stuff...)
@JM: I don't think so, or it happened twice: there was an episode while you were away. He had himself nuked out of the system, but then re-joined. There are traces of that on meta.
when I do it, I always put a comment what didn't I like and how it may be improved, otherwise those brave anonymous guys just downvote everything without any justification
@AsafKaragila and by the way - usually I force myself not to ask questions, because once on the first year of my BSc I asked the question at defence of one PhD which almost broke up his defence. My supervisor asked me kindly be more careful
@JM Not really... the existence of the null set is enough to ensure the rest of the sets.
My worst nightmare is that ZFC will be proved inconsistent before I have tenure. I hope they prove its inconsistency a day after my tenure is in order, that way I could really do nothing at all.
I came across this statement"If A is a subspace of X and B is a subspace of Y then the product topology of A x B is the same as the topology A x B inherits as a subspace of X x Y" What is meaning of this?? And It is also said that It is not possible for order topologies. Can you explain these statements with an example if possible??
Let X be an ordered set in the order topology. and Y be a subset of X. The order relation on X when resticted to Y. makes Y into an ordered set. How ever the resulting order topology on Y need not be the same as the topology that Y inherits as a subspace of X
I napped for a few hours after getting back to the room, but I've been up for several hours. I disconnected so that I could take the phone to where I could hear it while showering.
Ouch. A lot of what everbody posts has come from some book, or some class they took. Certainly there are original answers to some problems, but if we are going to have to reference everything we say, this is going to get tedious.
If I say that "someone told me" (because I can't remember who), then I expect that that will be taken with a bit less certainty than if I say "Gortaur told me". However, at least I am saying that it is not my idea, and that I don't remember whose idea it was originally.
I think I have said that whenever quoting from an old post. I can't say for sure that I have each and everyone, which is why I said that I may have plagiarized.
Hmm, if it were me, I would make my best effort to find my old stuff. If I have forgotten and somebody chides me, I will definitely include the source right away instead of being coy.
I believe it to be very hard to attribute things that you just internalized a long time ago. It would be tedious to read in all answers "that's something I learned from Rudin's book, I think you can find it there but here's the argument." However, if you copy something more or less straight from a book then I suppose you should say that.
Doesn't cost you anything at all, and chances are that this pointer will be very helpful because the interested reader knows where to find more.