« first day (593 days earlier)      last day (4723 days later) » 

23:00
@Skullpatrol I saw an earlier link of yours posted in my way
(Despite the sincerest efforts of Mr. Skullpatrol to make me seem like a crazed jackass)
7
@AsafKaragila Perhaps you should sober up =) Just a friendly advice.
I am sober.
Does anyone here wanna help me with a little topology question? Or are we busy figuring out chat rules and such?
Anyway, we now spent more lines on this than my link ever took. Could you now please consider the question? Good night guys!
23:02
@DavidK shoot!
Suppose I have two homeomorphisms $f:X\to Y$ and $g:X'\to Y'$. I'm trying to show that $h:X\times X'\to Y\times Y'$ defined by $h(x,x')=(f(x),g(x'))$, is a homeomorphism. I think I've got it mostly worked out, but I have a couple little uncertainties.
@SjoerdCdeVries Good night! I sadly doubt there are any number theorists in chat right now. Maybe his question is better suited for Math overflow or?
@DavidK well, then, I suggest that you present your argument
I've established that $h$ is injective, and I'm trying to prove that $h$ is a homeomorphism by showing that $h^{-1}(B)$ is open for every basis element $B$ of $Y\times Y'$.
This would prove continuity of $h$, right.
23:06
@robjohn How's the waiting going?
@tb Right, I'd have to prove the same thing for $h^{-1}$ to establish that $h$ and $h^{-1}$ are both continuous, therefore implying that $h$ is a homeomorphism.
@DavidK Well, $h^{-1}$ is given by $f^{-1}$ and $g^{-1}$, right? So if you prove your claim, you're done.
@DavidK: It is enough to show that $f \times g$ is continuous whenever $f$ and $g$ are, and to show that $(f \circ f') \times (g \circ g') = (f \times g) \circ (f' \times g')$ when these compositions make sense.
@tb That is one of my uncertainties.
@ZhenLin here comes the categorician again :)
23:08
Have I ever pretended to be anything else? :)
@ZhenLin Not sure I follow your notation exactly.
In your notation, $h = f \times g$.
@DavidK How about this: we sort out what you have and then we can discuss Zhen Lin's approach and see why it's more efficient?
@tb Ok. If $B\in\mathcal{B}$ where $\mathcal{B}$ is a basis for a topology on $Y\times Y'$. I can then write $B=U\times U'$ where $U$ and $U'$ are open in $Y$ and $Y'$ respectively. Right?
That's how you defined the basis for the product topology on $Y \times Y'$ last time if I remember correctly.
So, yes.
23:11
@ZhenLin You never answered my question about havig read the Penrose book? "The Road to Reality"
Good night, ding ding ding!
@JonasTeuwen Sleep well.
Good night, Jonas!
Thanks.
@tb Yes. So I want to then prove that $h^{-1}(U\times U')$ is open in $X\times X'$ to establish that $h$ is continuous. I know that $f^{-1}(U)$ and $g^{-1}(U')$ are open in $X$ and $X'$ respectively. So $f^{-1}(U)\times g^{-1}(U')$ is open in $X\times X'$. I guess I'm unsure about $h^{-1}(U\times U')$.
Is $h^{-1}(U\times U')=f^{-1}(U)\times g^{-1}(U')$?
23:15
Of course. But maybe the first thing to note is that you actually deal with bijections here.
@tb You mean $f$ and $g$ are bijections?
Well, they are homeomorphisms, right?
@tb Yes.
In particular they are bijections.
Hence so is $h$.
@tb Agreed.
23:17
So, where's the uncertainty?
@tb I think I got it now. I think I just needed to 'talk' it out.
@tb So why (or how) is @ZhenLin 's approach more efficient?
I'm not sure what he means by $f\circ f'$ and $g\circ g'$.
... have you not seen function composition?
@ZhenLin Yes. I have. It is clear what you mean by $\circ$. However, $f'$ and $g'$ are not so clear to me.
They're just some other functions.
@ZhenLin I'm not clear as to how that helps establish a homeomorphism. But, we literally just covered the definition of a homeomorphism, and we have established no theorems at this point.
@ZhenLin Oh wait. I think I see how I can use that.
23:29
That's because the fact you are trying to prove is a very special case of a general fact about functions.
@ZhenLin I'm not sure I understand the thrust of Qiaochu's last paragraph here. Does he want to look as representations as enriched functors $G \to \operatorname{End}{(V)}$ instead of the "action" definition $G \times V \to V$?
@tb: I suppose so. That's the OP is trying to do.
I couldn't understand the OP, that's why I'm asking. Thanks.
@ZhenLin Are these 'other' functions just arbitrary, continuous functions?
@DavidK: Yes. (Or I could break out the word "category" here...)
23:37
I still don't understand what he is saying (or how he's not contradicting his previous paragraph). It's exactly the problem that Top is not enriched over itself that gives the wrong definitions when passing from the action setting to the functor setting.
I am going to bed now. Goodnight chumps and chumpettes.
@AsafKaragila Good night
It doesn't look as if I am getting any acceptances today. I will have to wait until tomorrow for 20K.
@AsafKaragila good night
23:55
@tb: Well, the trouble is that it's not enriched over itself in an interesting way. It is however enriched over itself in a trivial way.
What does that mean?
Every set is a discrete topological space...
....

« first day (593 days earlier)      last day (4723 days later) »