Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI saw [[tube lemma]], and decided to bulk it up. Many books (such as the famous topology text by Munkres) give proofs which involves multiple subscripts and multiple choices; I've written arguments to mostly eliminate that.

   I saw tube lemma, and decided to bulk it up.

   Many books (such as the famous topology text by Munkres) give proofs which involves multiple subscripts and multiple choices; I’ve written arguments to mostly eliminate that.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2017
   • (edited May 11th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexComing back to this, now that we have _[[closed-projection characterization of compactness]]_: i have cross-linked the entry with _[[tube lemma]]_.

   Coming back to this, now that we have closed-projection characterization of compactness: i have cross-linked the entry with tube lemma.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAnd I have made explicit in both entries ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed-projection+characterization+of+compactness#TubeLemma) and [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/tube+lemma#ProofOfTubeLemmaViaClosedProjectionCharacterization)) the direct proof of the tube lemma via the closed-projection characterization.

   And I have made explicit in both entries (here and here) the direct proof of the tube lemma via the closed-projection characterization.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexOf course the tube lemma was effectively proved within the proof of proposition 1.2. But it's good to mention explicitly. More categorically, the tube lemma becomes the statement that for $X$ compact, the map $\forall_\pi: P(Y \times X) \to P(Y)$ takes opens to opens, as mentioned in point 5. of the Variant proofs section.

   Of course the tube lemma was effectively proved within the proof of proposition 1.2. But it’s good to mention explicitly.

   More categorically, the tube lemma becomes the statement that for $X$ compact, the map $\forall_\pi: P(Y \times X) \to P(Y)$ takes opens to opens, as mentioned in point 5. of the Variant proofs section.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added what you just said as a remark to the entry, right before and right after the statement and proof [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed-projection+characterization+of+compactness#TubeLemma).

   I have added what you just said as a remark to the entry, right before and right after the statement and proof here.