Processing math: 100%
Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2013
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2013

    I added to the statement under Properties; it’s a lot clearer I think to state it first for the one-point compactification.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2013

    The article seemed strangely limited in scope, so I generalised it somewhat. Also an Idea section, which motivates the definition.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2013
    • (edited Apr 15th 2013)

    Actually, in some ways it was too general, since originally X was not required to be locally compact. So if X is the space of rational numbers (as a subspace of the real line), then a function like xex2 (taking values in the real line with basepoint 0) should vanish at infinity, but there are too few compact subspaces of X to see this. The article currently doesn't have a definition that includes this, but at least it doesn't exclude this either.

    ETA: Actually, the comment about the Stone–Čech compactification seems to cover this, but I'm not sure how generally this can be made to work.