Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
It seems to me that despite so lenghty discussions and entry related to the mapping space-hm adjunction, only the ideal situations are treated (convenient categories of spaces). For this reason, I have created a new entry exponential law for spaces containing the conditions usually used in the category of ALL topological spaces, as well as few remarks about the pointed spaces.
Thanks, that's good to know.
One bit wasn't clear to me, so I asked a question.
Also, I changed to , which made sense to me; sorry if that's wrong.
I added some further details on top of the article, since the exponentiability in was not fully addressed. A useful reference has been added.
It is OK to write theta with lower star, but this lower star is not induced by functoriality, but by a bit more explicit/careful consideration.
I put a query over at locally compact space, although I think I already know the answer.
There are many definitions of locally compact spaces in the literature, all equivalent for Hausdorff spaces, and it's difficult to untangle them. The page exponential law for spaces suggests that core-compactness is the deciding feature. Do we know enough to be Bourbaki and decide which is best?
Yes, I believe so: the topology should be a continuous lattice, which means we should opt for the definition that says that compact neighborhoods of a point are a neighborhood basis, for every point. I may add that in in a bit.
I did some reorganizing of exponential law for spaces, and added a reference to Claudio Pisani’s neat result characterizing exponentiable spaces in terms of ultrafilter convergence.
1 to 8 of 8