# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

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

## Site Tag Cloud

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

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeDec 30th 2016

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.

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 11th 2017
• (edited May 11th 2017)

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

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 11th 2017

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

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeMay 11th 2017

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.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeMay 11th 2017

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