This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
To-do list for Net (mathematics):
|
The original definition of nets appears in an article written by E. H. Moore and H. L. Smith. Who is the latter? My guess is Herman Lyle Smith, a PhD student of Moore according to the Mathematical Genealogy Project. Can anyone confirm this? -- Jitse Niesen 21:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC) Yes, Smith was Moore's student at University of Chicago. He went on to get a job at Louisiana State University and then dropped into obscurity. (See Halmos, Has progress in mathematics slowed down? American Mathematical Monthly, 97 (7), 1990.)
According to Kelley, the equivalence of nets and filters is part of the folklore of the subject. Is there a formal equivalence? If not, the statement here should be modified.
Under examples, you wrote Then Xs is a net. Would not Then (Xs) is a net be a little clearer given the previous section?
The link ε-net has nothing to do with ε-nets in metric spaces, but I wasn't able to find the correct one. -- Kompik 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Directed preorders, or directed sets or directed filters, appear much more generally than just in topology, in some definitions of direct limits. I would like to know if the usage of the term net with meanings close to the one in the article also is more widespread. JoergenB 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of saying sequence do not encode enough "information" about continuity of function, I think it would be more appropriate to say sequences are not "long enough" to reach a certain point x. For example take the first ordinal w1 with the set of all smaller ordinals in order topology. w1 is a limit point of the set of smaller ordinals, but no sequence is "long" enough to "reach" w1, since every countable set has an upper bound strictly less than w1. However nets avoid this problem because they allow for much longer "sequences", might not be totally ordered ofc but still you get my idea Standard Oil ( talk) 13:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am proposing the stub Cauchy net be merged into the section net (mathematics)#Cauchy nets. The reason is that both the article and the section are very short and their combination can help create a more complete treatment, and to centralize efforts to make them better and longer. Brent Perreault ( talk) 04:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The contents of the Cauchy net page were merged into Net (mathematics) on 1 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Due to recent shortenings the first paragraph is missing some information, e.g. there is some lonely "f" lying around whose definition only becomes clear by reading the diff to the previous version. Please, correct this part. 130.75.242.23 ( talk) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The definition currently given on this page seems to disagree with the definition given by Kelley (pg. 70 of his General Topology), and I myself noticed difficulty in proving some things with the definition given here (and no problem with Kelley's definition).
Are we sure the definition given here is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GleasSpty ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
when it is proved that a cluster point is the limit of a subnet, the pretendet sub net is not a subnet with repsect to the definition we find in wikipedia. In fact the map from B to A is not monotone.
This is a mistake.
Moreover, this mistake reflects in the subsequent theorem, when it is proved that a compact space is net-compact. If the proof whose correct, in the case A is countable one would get a proof that a compact space is sequentialli compact. Which is false. Indeed the infinite produt of [0,1] is compact by tychonoff but it is not sequentially compact.
Please, consider seriously mi concerns even if I wrote them in a very bad style.
If you think I'm wrong, please explain better why the proof proposed do not apply to the countable case.
I'm thinking we should move this to Net (topology) since there are other mathematical notions of nets, particularly Net (polyhedron), and I don't think either of them qualifies as primary. There are quite a few incoming links to change if this is done (which I'd be happy to take care of), but I wanted to make sure no one objected first. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Net (mathematics) should be made a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)