Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Compactification
Replies: 15   Last Post: Mar 17, 2013 6:11 AM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Posts: 3,058
Registered: 12/4/04
Re: Compactification
Posted: Dec 12, 2012 11:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In <Pine.NEB.4.64.1212112003320.6609@panix2.panix.com>, on 12/11/2012
at 08:13 PM, William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> said:

>Why the extra luggage of the embedding for the definition of
>compactification? Why isn't the definition simply
> Y is a compactification of X when there's some
> embedding h:X -> Y for which h(X) is a dense subset of Y?

Because in general there is more than one such imbedding.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.