Jump to content

Talk:Topologist's sine curve: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field.
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Mathematics| importance=mid}}
}}
This page is useless without the figure. Could I scan it from a book? I guess a mathematical figure cannot be copyrighted. [[User:Wshun|wshun]] 03:50, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This page is useless without the figure. Could I scan it from a book? I guess a mathematical figure cannot be copyrighted. [[User:Wshun|wshun]] 03:50, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Line 5: Line 8:
Seems like this space is too weird for Iceweasel 2.0.0.3 (Debian version of Firefox) ;) Works fine in Konqueror.
Seems like this space is too weird for Iceweasel 2.0.0.3 (Debian version of Firefox) ;) Works fine in Konqueror.
[[User:Functor salad|Functor salad]] 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Functor salad|Functor salad]] 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


------
Image looks inconsistant with definition as the plot goes to negative x and in definition we take x from (0;1].
I may be just wrong though.
[[Special:Contributions/83.21.141.16|83.21.141.16]] ([[User talk:83.21.141.16|talk]]) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


== Something's very very wrong here ==
== Something's very very wrong here ==
Line 17: Line 26:


The question is now: When topologists talk about "topologist's sine curve" do they mean the one with the interval or the one with just a point? --[[Special:Contributions/131.234.106.197|131.234.106.197]] ([[User talk:131.234.106.197|talk]]) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The question is now: When topologists talk about "topologist's sine curve" do they mean the one with the interval or the one with just a point? --[[Special:Contributions/131.234.106.197|131.234.106.197]] ([[User talk:131.234.106.197|talk]]) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

: Fixed. I don't know the answer to your last question. In Munkres, the closure is used. –[[User talk:Pomte|Pomte]] 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:: thanx--[[Special:Contributions/131.234.106.197|131.234.106.197]] ([[User talk:131.234.106.197|talk]]) 12:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::The current terminology of the article (with 'topologist's sine curve' denoting a non-closed set) is that of ''Counterexamples in Topology''. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== Hausdorff dimension of this space ==

Is the [[Hausdorff dimension]] of this space known exactly or just approximately? Does it exceed 1? <br/> [[Special:Contributions/92.105.139.80|92.105.139.80]] ([[User talk:92.105.139.80|talk]]) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

== Graph improvement? ==

I'm not sure how to do this, but it would be neat to come up with a graph whose color becomes darker and/or more saturated to suggest increasing density approaching 0. As it is, at a certain point it just turns into a solid block. --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

== Definition: including origin vs interval ==

An anonymous contributor in the last month changed the formula of the definition of the set T to include not just the origin but the whole interval <math>\{0\} \times [-1,1]</math>. This contradicts with the text, and it is a bit confusing, since later in the article the closed version of this set is referenced.

I have thus reverted the change: I think both definitions are used in the literature, so it does not really matter which one we give first, but we should be consistent in the article.

== ''make page'': [[Fourier analysis on topological space]] ==

My title is very generic. If we make the page we then have to update the title. But the page should be created! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.75.194.216|85.75.194.216]] ([[User talk:85.75.194.216#top|talk]]) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 05:30, 9 March 2024

This page is useless without the figure. Could I scan it from a book? I guess a mathematical figure cannot be copyrighted. wshun 03:50, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Image crashes browser when viewed full-size

[edit]

Seems like this space is too weird for Iceweasel 2.0.0.3 (Debian version of Firefox) ;) Works fine in Konqueror. Functor salad 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Image looks inconsistant with definition as the plot goes to negative x and in definition we take x from (0;1]. I may be just wrong though. 83.21.141.16 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something's very very wrong here

[edit]

In the article, it says: You take the closure of the graph of sin(1/x) with x\in ]0,1]. The function is bounded, the domain is bounded, hence the graph is bounded. The closure of a bounded set w.r.t. the topology of a finite dimensional euclidean space is always compact. => Therefore, the topologist's sine curve is always compact, hence locally compact. But in the article, it says: "T is the continuous image of a locally compact space (namely, let V be the space {−1} ∪ (0, 1], and use the map f from V to T defined by f(−1) = (0,0) and f(x) = (x, sin(1/x)) for x > 0), but is not locally compact itself."

Later, it says in the article, that you may a variation, named "closed topologist's sine curve", which is now exactly the closure of the graph and therefore - by defintion - equal to the topologist's sine curve. So, the original topologist's sine curve is already the closed one...

I guess that some of the statements in this article refer to another sort of sine curve, where you just add (0,0) to the graph of sin(1/x). Then it would make sense to take the closure of it and then it would not be locally compact, but the image of a locally compact set (even a compact set)

The question is now: When topologists talk about "topologist's sine curve" do they mean the one with the interval or the one with just a point? --131.234.106.197 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I don't know the answer to your last question. In Munkres, the closure is used. –Pomte 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanx--131.234.106.197 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current terminology of the article (with 'topologist's sine curve' denoting a non-closed set) is that of Counterexamples in Topology. Algebraist 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hausdorff dimension of this space

[edit]

Is the Hausdorff dimension of this space known exactly or just approximately? Does it exceed 1?
92.105.139.80 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graph improvement?

[edit]

I'm not sure how to do this, but it would be neat to come up with a graph whose color becomes darker and/or more saturated to suggest increasing density approaching 0. As it is, at a certain point it just turns into a solid block. --Dfeuer (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition: including origin vs interval

[edit]

An anonymous contributor in the last month changed the formula of the definition of the set T to include not just the origin but the whole interval . This contradicts with the text, and it is a bit confusing, since later in the article the closed version of this set is referenced.

I have thus reverted the change: I think both definitions are used in the literature, so it does not really matter which one we give first, but we should be consistent in the article.

My title is very generic. If we make the page we then have to update the title. But the page should be created! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.194.216 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]