
Re: name for definition in group theory
Posted:
Mar 26, 2013 11:35 AM


On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:07:13 0600, "G. A. Edgar" <edgar@math.ohiostate.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <250320130642467406%edgar@math.ohiostate.edu.invalid>, G. >A. Edgar <edgar@math.ohiostate.edu.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <m89uk8lshngii7afp7qktplg90ubnq9doj@4ax.com>, David C. >> Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote: >> >> > A topological group is >> >> Now there is overkill for you. > >There are results in number theory where the simplest, best motivated, >known proofs involve complex analysis. > >It would be very interesting if we find a result in group theory where >the simplest proof involves topological groups. But this "rigid >groups" theorem is not it...
You might read replies to your posts. I haven't claimed that the first proof I gave was the best one. In fact I've explicitly disclaimed that several times.

