Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 18 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 20 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Does anyone know who won the fields medal? I can't seem to find this information anywhere! ... If it hasn't been released, when will it be? I heard that it would be released on 19 August,2010 but I don't want to be waiting till midnight for the declaration of the world's best mathematicians! Please guys, put me out of my misery and tell me how many more hourse I need to wait? I've waited for 4 years already ... Thanks! Signed:THE DUDE. (BTW, I fixed my typsetting bug!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.228 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I know now ... Damn, why do applied mathematicians always get the awards? Where are the algebraists, topologists and geometers (and number theorists for that matter)? And why on Earth hasn't anyone received it for logic and set theory yet? (FOrget the the first question in above paragraph, I think I know who won it.) Thanks guys ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.228 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Is this right? 114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) How did you type 4 tildas without a signature coming up?
Why isn't anyone answering my questions? Please answer guys ... Thanks guys ... 114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please answer my question? I won't attack you. What makes you think I'm bad tempered? I just like to express my opinion 'is all. I'm as polite as I can be and yet I'm misunderstood.I won't argue. Come on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.55.15 ( talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The argument of a given binary function is an (ordered) pair, so the argument of a given unary function is a singleton, isn't it? Eliko ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Monoliths are 1:4:9. That would be 1 by 4 by 9. But 1 what by 4 what by 9 what? Centimetres? Metres? Yards? Feet? Inches? Can somebody help? -- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I know this is about an entertainment film but it is a mathematical question, so please don't ask me to move the question.
Hello!
Let d(n) be a number of positive divisors of n, for example, d(6)=4.
In 1907 S. Wigert proved that for any holds two statements:
1) for infinitely many n ;
2) for all sufficiently large n ;
Does anybody know more precise estimations than these?
Actually I am able to prove better estimation than 1), but I don't have any information about better results.
Thank you!
RaitisMath (
talk)
12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently encountered this proposition that seems somewhat vague to me: Proposition: Let X be a topological space without isolated points having countable -weight and such that every nowhere dense subset in it is closed. Then it is a Pytkeev space.
The thing which is not clear to me is this, if every nowhere dense subset is closed, doesn't that means that it has to be discrete? and doesn't discrete means that every point is isolated? So, is the condition given in this proposition is that, there arn't any nowhere dense subsets in X? Which means that every subset of X is dense somewhere? which doesn't make sense.. I mean, what about subsets of X that contain one point for instance? Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I see.. Thanks for your example. But I am still confused. I mean, here is the proof of this proposition. If we take your example of the cofinite topology, under consideration, how can I explain the emphesized remark in brackets? I mean, the nowhere dense subsets in your example are closed and not discrete.. Proof: Let . Then , because every nowhere dense set is closed (and hence discrete). Let be a list of elements of a countable -base in the space, which are contained in . Let . Then is a countable -net, at x, and each is infinite.
Also, something in your second remark bothers me. Suppose for example that I take with the usual topology and try to define all the nowhere dense sets to be closed. Then, for example, the nowhere dense set will turn closed? But it cant be since it doesn't contain it's accumulation point 0.. what am I missing here? Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 08:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ya sure, it's "Weakly Frechest-Urysohn and Pytkeev spaces" by V.I. Malykhin and G. Tironi. From Topology and its Applications 104 (2000) 181-190 Let me know if you can't find it. Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I see.. OK thanks. I'll think about it. Prove to myself that this is a topology... Here is a direct link to the article: http://www.f2h.co.il/307676563971 Proposition 2.1 there.. What do you think? Topologia clalit ( talk) 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't even noticed that this link is in Hebrew.. Here is another link in: https://www.transferbigfiles.com/53c3b8c5-f0f5-4bbc-93d2-a0030eaae50a?rid=gcIEkCL2J4VQPfWN7RipdA%3d%3d It's in English.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topologia clalit ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Topologia clalit ( talk) 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< August 18 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 20 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Does anyone know who won the fields medal? I can't seem to find this information anywhere! ... If it hasn't been released, when will it be? I heard that it would be released on 19 August,2010 but I don't want to be waiting till midnight for the declaration of the world's best mathematicians! Please guys, put me out of my misery and tell me how many more hourse I need to wait? I've waited for 4 years already ... Thanks! Signed:THE DUDE. (BTW, I fixed my typsetting bug!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.228 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I know now ... Damn, why do applied mathematicians always get the awards? Where are the algebraists, topologists and geometers (and number theorists for that matter)? And why on Earth hasn't anyone received it for logic and set theory yet? (FOrget the the first question in above paragraph, I think I know who won it.) Thanks guys ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.26.228 ( talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Is this right? 114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC) How did you type 4 tildas without a signature coming up?
Why isn't anyone answering my questions? Please answer guys ... Thanks guys ... 114.72.244.249 ( talk) 08:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please answer my question? I won't attack you. What makes you think I'm bad tempered? I just like to express my opinion 'is all. I'm as polite as I can be and yet I'm misunderstood.I won't argue. Come on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.55.15 ( talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The argument of a given binary function is an (ordered) pair, so the argument of a given unary function is a singleton, isn't it? Eliko ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Monoliths are 1:4:9. That would be 1 by 4 by 9. But 1 what by 4 what by 9 what? Centimetres? Metres? Yards? Feet? Inches? Can somebody help? -- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 08:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I know this is about an entertainment film but it is a mathematical question, so please don't ask me to move the question.
Hello!
Let d(n) be a number of positive divisors of n, for example, d(6)=4.
In 1907 S. Wigert proved that for any holds two statements:
1) for infinitely many n ;
2) for all sufficiently large n ;
Does anybody know more precise estimations than these?
Actually I am able to prove better estimation than 1), but I don't have any information about better results.
Thank you!
RaitisMath (
talk)
12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently encountered this proposition that seems somewhat vague to me: Proposition: Let X be a topological space without isolated points having countable -weight and such that every nowhere dense subset in it is closed. Then it is a Pytkeev space.
The thing which is not clear to me is this, if every nowhere dense subset is closed, doesn't that means that it has to be discrete? and doesn't discrete means that every point is isolated? So, is the condition given in this proposition is that, there arn't any nowhere dense subsets in X? Which means that every subset of X is dense somewhere? which doesn't make sense.. I mean, what about subsets of X that contain one point for instance? Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I see.. Thanks for your example. But I am still confused. I mean, here is the proof of this proposition. If we take your example of the cofinite topology, under consideration, how can I explain the emphesized remark in brackets? I mean, the nowhere dense subsets in your example are closed and not discrete.. Proof: Let . Then , because every nowhere dense set is closed (and hence discrete). Let be a list of elements of a countable -base in the space, which are contained in . Let . Then is a countable -net, at x, and each is infinite.
Also, something in your second remark bothers me. Suppose for example that I take with the usual topology and try to define all the nowhere dense sets to be closed. Then, for example, the nowhere dense set will turn closed? But it cant be since it doesn't contain it's accumulation point 0.. what am I missing here? Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 08:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ya sure, it's "Weakly Frechest-Urysohn and Pytkeev spaces" by V.I. Malykhin and G. Tironi. From Topology and its Applications 104 (2000) 181-190 Let me know if you can't find it. Thanks! Topologia clalit ( talk) 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I see.. OK thanks. I'll think about it. Prove to myself that this is a topology... Here is a direct link to the article: http://www.f2h.co.il/307676563971 Proposition 2.1 there.. What do you think? Topologia clalit ( talk) 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't even noticed that this link is in Hebrew.. Here is another link in: https://www.transferbigfiles.com/53c3b8c5-f0f5-4bbc-93d2-a0030eaae50a?rid=gcIEkCL2J4VQPfWN7RipdA%3d%3d It's in English.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topologia clalit ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Topologia clalit ( talk) 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)