Talk:Topology
From Vectorcalcumb
(Difference between revisions)
Aaronwelles (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | I Added a definition of int(A) so that our open set defintion would work, and I removed CZ's comment. In defining int(A) our class notes speak of B's intersection with M being a subset of A, for A being a subset of M. Is this necessary? | + | 2/8/6- I Added a definition of int(A) so that our open set defintion would work, and I removed CZ's comment. In defining int(A) our class notes speak of B's intersection with M being a subset of A, for A being a subset of M. Is this necessary? Why include the M in the definition at all? -Aaron |
| + | |||
| + | 2/9/6- Is the set of everything open? I remember talking about this in class, but forget how it went. The set of everything has an empty set as boundry, which it doesn't contain. So its open? Is that right? - Aaron | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2/10/06 I think what we were talking about is that every set is open in itself, that is <m> \\bbR^m</m> is an open subset of <m> \\bbR^m</m>, but maybe is closed in <m> \\bbR^{m+1}</m> | ||
Current revision as of 13:17, 10 February 2006
2/8/6- I Added a definition of int(A) so that our open set defintion would work, and I removed CZ's comment. In defining int(A) our class notes speak of B's intersection with M being a subset of A, for A being a subset of M. Is this necessary? Why include the M in the definition at all? -Aaron
2/9/6- Is the set of everything open? I remember talking about this in class, but forget how it went. The set of everything has an empty set as boundry, which it doesn't contain. So its open? Is that right? - Aaron
2/10/06 I think what we were talking about is that every set is open in itself, that is <m> \\bbR^m</m> is an open subset of <m> \\bbR^m</m>, but maybe is closed in <m> \\bbR^{m+1}</m>
