@Srivatsan How many of them are there, how much change they caused (I mean Shelah completely rebuilt model theory, half of set theory, and probably some more stuff too) and how long before all the results will be understood. Erdos' work is pretty straightforward, Shelah's work will remain ciphered for years before people will truly understand what's going on there.
@AsafKaragila "Erdos work is straightforward." Not at all. Nobody understood the power of the probabilistic method quite like him, before him at least.
The really scary part is that he wrote the last 300 papers in the past decade or something like that. Most people would slow down, he picked up the pace.
@AsafKaragila For instance, Ken Kunen’s web pages list 106 papers and a review, and of course there’s his set theory book $-$ and he’s a fairly significant name in the field.
@Srivatsan Time taken to write a review is usually longer than that taken for writing the paper of same length. Largely because, a reviewer is expected to go through the book thoroughly pointing out what kind of course is the material in the book best suited for? What is expected of a instructor using that book? In what way is it different from extant books and so on...
@BrianMScott He's a good friend of Shelah, one of my friend doing his masters under Shelah and his thesis is related to their joint work about creatures forcing.
@AsafKaragila It’s intermediate between the product and box topologies on a product. Arnie Miller? No, I left Madison before he arrived. Unfortunately.
Shelah and Roslanowski has a joint paper "Sheva Sheva Sheva - Large creatures", where as sheva is Hebrew for 7, and 777 is the number of god (or something)
Hi, @Martin. I have to retract what I said the other day: I may have had that whole Herrlich exercise, but if so, there’s a part that I’m damned if I can reconstruct.
@BrianMScott I was at his talks at some seminars here. One was at a seminar led by Lubica Hola, another one at a seminar lead by Pavel Kostyrko. (But I don't think it's very probable you have heard these names before. L. Hola does research in hypertopologies and P. Kostyrko some real analysis, matrix summability methods and similar stuff.)
He talked about separate and joint continuity, quasicontinuity and similar things.
@BrianMScott He did lot of various things. I think I saw his paper cited in van Rooij-Schikhof for some result on symmetric derivatives or some related topic.
@BrianMScott To show that the canonical map is closed for compact Hausdorff $X$ all that I use is that continuous image of compact is compact and compact subset of Hausdorff is closed. No choice there, right?
By zero-ultrafilter you mean ultrafilter in the system of zero-sets, i.e. something closed under unions, subsets which are zero-sets and maximal, correct?
@MartinSleziak But in that problem you don’t have a compact $X$: it’s only Tikhonov-compact. However, that’s enough to show that the canonical embedding is closed.
@MartinSleziak Closed under finite intersections and supersets that are zero-sets, and maximal with respect to those properties.
@BrianMScott You seem to know more about me then I supposed. I believe I was continuing in work which was done by other people in a different paper, so I used their choice. It seems that both ideals and filters are used, perhaps with filters being more frequent. Nevertheless, I doubt there's something really interesting in that paper.
People with enough rep can vote to close questions. If a question gets five votes, it automatically closes. One privilege is being able to see how many close votes a question has at any given time.
If it's already closed you can even see the names of the people who closed the question under it. (And you don't need any reputation for that.) The privilege is useful before a question has been closed, where you can see the less-than-five votes cast.
@AsafKaragila More than that, I am my parents' son. I was literally forced to visit the barber first thing I landed home in summer. Notwithstanding the jet lag and all that.
@Srivatsan I wanted to say that the number of such people satisfying Anon's quest is the cardinality of the set of your siblings. Typed out such a short sentence in haste!
@KannappanSampath You are guessing that I have a sibling or that I am a lone child? Apparently there is some confusion about what number we are guessing.
(I have a brother, not sure who is right and who isn't.)
Few months back (while studying the Vitali set construction), I had this question: how much choice do we need to assert that the vector space of the reals over the rationals has a Hamel basis?
@AsafKaragila Of course, I dare not post this question because I don't think I can follow the answers. But I thought the question was an interesting one. Do you think this could've (or, would've) been studied before?
@Srivatsan In Herrlich's book there is a diagram in which it shows that $\mathbf{AC}(\mathbb R)$ (choice functions from subsets of $\mathbb R$) implies Hamel basis exists.
This is of course not surprising, it is also equivalent to $\mathbb R$ being well orderable - which in turn makes an easy proof for finding this basis.
@Srivatsan Howard-Rubin is a (big) book where many consequences of AC are collected, together with plenty of references and list of models, in which some of the forms hold/don't hold.
@MartinSleziak Oh, this is the "consequences" book then, not "equivalences". I was confused that your comment disagreed with Asaf's (the in the next line).
@AsafKaragila Ah, Ok. Thanks, all three of you. Appreciated.
Asaf: You mean Existence of Hamel basis $\Rightarrow$ existence of non-measurable function (as a solution of Cauchy equation) $\Rightarrow$ existence of non-measurable set?
@anon No. (But I would've understood the reference under "usual" circumstances. Now sure why I didn't get it now. I think I use the idiom slightly differently; not sure how.)
I'm wondering if this is the best of JM's avatar till now. But I remember only the Cheelix, so I would give the award to this without second thought. =)
Oh, I don't know that much detail, I can ask them tomorrow. I have just found out. The other guy in my office has a PhD in special functions but he didn't mention which ones.
In mathematics, the Klein bottle () is a non-orientable surface, informally, a surface (a two-dimensional manifold) in which notions of left and right cannot be consistently defined. Other related non-orientable objects include the Möbius strip and the real projective plane. Whereas a Möbius strip is a surface with boundary, a Klein bottle has no boundary. (For comparison, a sphere is an orientable surface with no boundary.)
The Klein bottle was first described in 1882 by the German mathematician Felix Klein. It may have been originally named the Kleinsche Fläche ("Klein surface") and th...