Proof of a basic $AC_omega$ equivalence
$begingroup$
On Wikipedia it is mentioned that "... in order to prove that every accumulation point $x$ of a set $Ssubseteq mathbf R$ is the limit of some sequence of elements of $Ssetminus {x}$, one uses (a weak form of) the axiom of countable choice. When formulated for accumulation points of arbitrary metric spaces, the statement becomes equivalent to $AC_omega$. ..."
I have Herrlich's paper "Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis" where in theorem 2.4. it is stated that these are indeed equivalent. Then I looked up the reference he quotes, [4], which are Bentley H.L., Herrlich H., Countable choice and pseudometric spaces which does not contain the proof and [14] Herrlich H., Steprans J., Maximal filters, continuity and choice principles. does also not contain the proof, hence my question:
Where can I see a proof of
"if $S$ is a set in a metric space $X$ with accumulation point $s$
then there exists a sequence $s_n$ in $S$ converging to $s$"
$implies$ $AC_omega$
? (the other implication is clear to me). Thanks.
reference-request set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On Wikipedia it is mentioned that "... in order to prove that every accumulation point $x$ of a set $Ssubseteq mathbf R$ is the limit of some sequence of elements of $Ssetminus {x}$, one uses (a weak form of) the axiom of countable choice. When formulated for accumulation points of arbitrary metric spaces, the statement becomes equivalent to $AC_omega$. ..."
I have Herrlich's paper "Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis" where in theorem 2.4. it is stated that these are indeed equivalent. Then I looked up the reference he quotes, [4], which are Bentley H.L., Herrlich H., Countable choice and pseudometric spaces which does not contain the proof and [14] Herrlich H., Steprans J., Maximal filters, continuity and choice principles. does also not contain the proof, hence my question:
Where can I see a proof of
"if $S$ is a set in a metric space $X$ with accumulation point $s$
then there exists a sequence $s_n$ in $S$ converging to $s$"
$implies$ $AC_omega$
? (the other implication is clear to me). Thanks.
reference-request set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
$begingroup$
On Wikipedia it is mentioned that "... in order to prove that every accumulation point $x$ of a set $Ssubseteq mathbf R$ is the limit of some sequence of elements of $Ssetminus {x}$, one uses (a weak form of) the axiom of countable choice. When formulated for accumulation points of arbitrary metric spaces, the statement becomes equivalent to $AC_omega$. ..."
I have Herrlich's paper "Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis" where in theorem 2.4. it is stated that these are indeed equivalent. Then I looked up the reference he quotes, [4], which are Bentley H.L., Herrlich H., Countable choice and pseudometric spaces which does not contain the proof and [14] Herrlich H., Steprans J., Maximal filters, continuity and choice principles. does also not contain the proof, hence my question:
Where can I see a proof of
"if $S$ is a set in a metric space $X$ with accumulation point $s$
then there exists a sequence $s_n$ in $S$ converging to $s$"
$implies$ $AC_omega$
? (the other implication is clear to me). Thanks.
reference-request set-theory axiom-of-choice
$endgroup$
On Wikipedia it is mentioned that "... in order to prove that every accumulation point $x$ of a set $Ssubseteq mathbf R$ is the limit of some sequence of elements of $Ssetminus {x}$, one uses (a weak form of) the axiom of countable choice. When formulated for accumulation points of arbitrary metric spaces, the statement becomes equivalent to $AC_omega$. ..."
I have Herrlich's paper "Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis" where in theorem 2.4. it is stated that these are indeed equivalent. Then I looked up the reference he quotes, [4], which are Bentley H.L., Herrlich H., Countable choice and pseudometric spaces which does not contain the proof and [14] Herrlich H., Steprans J., Maximal filters, continuity and choice principles. does also not contain the proof, hence my question:
Where can I see a proof of
"if $S$ is a set in a metric space $X$ with accumulation point $s$
then there exists a sequence $s_n$ in $S$ converging to $s$"
$implies$ $AC_omega$
? (the other implication is clear to me). Thanks.
reference-request set-theory axiom-of-choice
reference-request set-theory axiom-of-choice
edited Mar 30 '13 at 15:30
Rudy the Reindeer
asked Mar 30 '13 at 15:01
Rudy the ReindeerRudy the Reindeer
26.5k1792240
26.5k1792240
3
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27
3
3
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof does appear in Herrlich and Steprans paper. It is the combination of propositions 4 and 5.
The first step is to prove that $sf AC_omega$ is equivalent to the following statement:
For each sequence of non-empty sets $(X_n)$ there exists a strictly monotone function $sigmacolonBbb{Nto N}$ with $prodlimits_{ninBbb N}X_{sigma(n)}neqvarnothing$.
Obviously $sf AC_omega$ implies this condition, to see the reverse implication, suppose this statement is true, take $A_n=prodlimits_{i=0}^n X_n$, these are non-empty sets. And the $sigma$ which exists witnessing $prod_{ninBbb N}A_{sigma(n)}$ defines a choice from $X_n$'s, by taking $(a_n)$ where $a_nin A_{sigma(n)}$, then $a_n=(x_0^n,ldots,x_{sigma(n)}^n)$. Since $nleqsigma(n)$ for all $n$, we can safely define the sequence $(x_n^n)$ as a choice from the $X_n$'s. $square$
The second proposition is this:
Proposition 5. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $sf AC_omega$.
- For each metric space $A$, the following are equivalent:
- $x$ is an accumulation point of $A$.
- There exists a sequence $(a_n)$ in $A$ with $a_nto x$.
- For mappings $f$ between metric spaces the following are equivalent:
- $f$ is continuous.
- $f$ is sequentially continuous.
Clearly $sf AC_omega$ implies the other two equivalences. And they are equivalent themselves, (3) implies (2) by taking the identity function, and (2) implies (3) because the failure of (3) is really just the failure of (2).
So we only have to show that (2) implies $sf AC_omega$. This is done as follows, take $(X_n)$ to be a sequence of non-empty sets, let $X$ be the following set, $$X={infty}cupbigcup_{ninBbb N}Big(X_ntimes{n+1}Big),$$
along with the metric:
$$dBig(langle x,nrangle,langle y,mrangleBig)=begin{cases}frac1n & n=m\left|frac1n-frac1mright|& nneq mend{cases}\
dBig(langle x,nrangle,inftyBig)=dBig(infty,langle x,nrangleBig)=frac1n\
d(infty,infty)=0$$
Since $infty$ is clearly an accumulation point of $A=Xsetminus{infty}$, by our assumption there is a sequence $a_ntoinfty$, and we may assume without loss of generality that this sequence is strictly decreasing (in its distances that is). Let $sigma$ be the unique function such that $a_nin X_{sigma(n)}times{sigma(n)+1}$. This clearly defines a partial choice as in the previous proposition, so $sf AC_omega$ holds. $square$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f346526%2fproof-of-a-basic-ac-omega-equivalence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The proof does appear in Herrlich and Steprans paper. It is the combination of propositions 4 and 5.
The first step is to prove that $sf AC_omega$ is equivalent to the following statement:
For each sequence of non-empty sets $(X_n)$ there exists a strictly monotone function $sigmacolonBbb{Nto N}$ with $prodlimits_{ninBbb N}X_{sigma(n)}neqvarnothing$.
Obviously $sf AC_omega$ implies this condition, to see the reverse implication, suppose this statement is true, take $A_n=prodlimits_{i=0}^n X_n$, these are non-empty sets. And the $sigma$ which exists witnessing $prod_{ninBbb N}A_{sigma(n)}$ defines a choice from $X_n$'s, by taking $(a_n)$ where $a_nin A_{sigma(n)}$, then $a_n=(x_0^n,ldots,x_{sigma(n)}^n)$. Since $nleqsigma(n)$ for all $n$, we can safely define the sequence $(x_n^n)$ as a choice from the $X_n$'s. $square$
The second proposition is this:
Proposition 5. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $sf AC_omega$.
- For each metric space $A$, the following are equivalent:
- $x$ is an accumulation point of $A$.
- There exists a sequence $(a_n)$ in $A$ with $a_nto x$.
- For mappings $f$ between metric spaces the following are equivalent:
- $f$ is continuous.
- $f$ is sequentially continuous.
Clearly $sf AC_omega$ implies the other two equivalences. And they are equivalent themselves, (3) implies (2) by taking the identity function, and (2) implies (3) because the failure of (3) is really just the failure of (2).
So we only have to show that (2) implies $sf AC_omega$. This is done as follows, take $(X_n)$ to be a sequence of non-empty sets, let $X$ be the following set, $$X={infty}cupbigcup_{ninBbb N}Big(X_ntimes{n+1}Big),$$
along with the metric:
$$dBig(langle x,nrangle,langle y,mrangleBig)=begin{cases}frac1n & n=m\left|frac1n-frac1mright|& nneq mend{cases}\
dBig(langle x,nrangle,inftyBig)=dBig(infty,langle x,nrangleBig)=frac1n\
d(infty,infty)=0$$
Since $infty$ is clearly an accumulation point of $A=Xsetminus{infty}$, by our assumption there is a sequence $a_ntoinfty$, and we may assume without loss of generality that this sequence is strictly decreasing (in its distances that is). Let $sigma$ be the unique function such that $a_nin X_{sigma(n)}times{sigma(n)+1}$. This clearly defines a partial choice as in the previous proposition, so $sf AC_omega$ holds. $square$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof does appear in Herrlich and Steprans paper. It is the combination of propositions 4 and 5.
The first step is to prove that $sf AC_omega$ is equivalent to the following statement:
For each sequence of non-empty sets $(X_n)$ there exists a strictly monotone function $sigmacolonBbb{Nto N}$ with $prodlimits_{ninBbb N}X_{sigma(n)}neqvarnothing$.
Obviously $sf AC_omega$ implies this condition, to see the reverse implication, suppose this statement is true, take $A_n=prodlimits_{i=0}^n X_n$, these are non-empty sets. And the $sigma$ which exists witnessing $prod_{ninBbb N}A_{sigma(n)}$ defines a choice from $X_n$'s, by taking $(a_n)$ where $a_nin A_{sigma(n)}$, then $a_n=(x_0^n,ldots,x_{sigma(n)}^n)$. Since $nleqsigma(n)$ for all $n$, we can safely define the sequence $(x_n^n)$ as a choice from the $X_n$'s. $square$
The second proposition is this:
Proposition 5. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $sf AC_omega$.
- For each metric space $A$, the following are equivalent:
- $x$ is an accumulation point of $A$.
- There exists a sequence $(a_n)$ in $A$ with $a_nto x$.
- For mappings $f$ between metric spaces the following are equivalent:
- $f$ is continuous.
- $f$ is sequentially continuous.
Clearly $sf AC_omega$ implies the other two equivalences. And they are equivalent themselves, (3) implies (2) by taking the identity function, and (2) implies (3) because the failure of (3) is really just the failure of (2).
So we only have to show that (2) implies $sf AC_omega$. This is done as follows, take $(X_n)$ to be a sequence of non-empty sets, let $X$ be the following set, $$X={infty}cupbigcup_{ninBbb N}Big(X_ntimes{n+1}Big),$$
along with the metric:
$$dBig(langle x,nrangle,langle y,mrangleBig)=begin{cases}frac1n & n=m\left|frac1n-frac1mright|& nneq mend{cases}\
dBig(langle x,nrangle,inftyBig)=dBig(infty,langle x,nrangleBig)=frac1n\
d(infty,infty)=0$$
Since $infty$ is clearly an accumulation point of $A=Xsetminus{infty}$, by our assumption there is a sequence $a_ntoinfty$, and we may assume without loss of generality that this sequence is strictly decreasing (in its distances that is). Let $sigma$ be the unique function such that $a_nin X_{sigma(n)}times{sigma(n)+1}$. This clearly defines a partial choice as in the previous proposition, so $sf AC_omega$ holds. $square$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The proof does appear in Herrlich and Steprans paper. It is the combination of propositions 4 and 5.
The first step is to prove that $sf AC_omega$ is equivalent to the following statement:
For each sequence of non-empty sets $(X_n)$ there exists a strictly monotone function $sigmacolonBbb{Nto N}$ with $prodlimits_{ninBbb N}X_{sigma(n)}neqvarnothing$.
Obviously $sf AC_omega$ implies this condition, to see the reverse implication, suppose this statement is true, take $A_n=prodlimits_{i=0}^n X_n$, these are non-empty sets. And the $sigma$ which exists witnessing $prod_{ninBbb N}A_{sigma(n)}$ defines a choice from $X_n$'s, by taking $(a_n)$ where $a_nin A_{sigma(n)}$, then $a_n=(x_0^n,ldots,x_{sigma(n)}^n)$. Since $nleqsigma(n)$ for all $n$, we can safely define the sequence $(x_n^n)$ as a choice from the $X_n$'s. $square$
The second proposition is this:
Proposition 5. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $sf AC_omega$.
- For each metric space $A$, the following are equivalent:
- $x$ is an accumulation point of $A$.
- There exists a sequence $(a_n)$ in $A$ with $a_nto x$.
- For mappings $f$ between metric spaces the following are equivalent:
- $f$ is continuous.
- $f$ is sequentially continuous.
Clearly $sf AC_omega$ implies the other two equivalences. And they are equivalent themselves, (3) implies (2) by taking the identity function, and (2) implies (3) because the failure of (3) is really just the failure of (2).
So we only have to show that (2) implies $sf AC_omega$. This is done as follows, take $(X_n)$ to be a sequence of non-empty sets, let $X$ be the following set, $$X={infty}cupbigcup_{ninBbb N}Big(X_ntimes{n+1}Big),$$
along with the metric:
$$dBig(langle x,nrangle,langle y,mrangleBig)=begin{cases}frac1n & n=m\left|frac1n-frac1mright|& nneq mend{cases}\
dBig(langle x,nrangle,inftyBig)=dBig(infty,langle x,nrangleBig)=frac1n\
d(infty,infty)=0$$
Since $infty$ is clearly an accumulation point of $A=Xsetminus{infty}$, by our assumption there is a sequence $a_ntoinfty$, and we may assume without loss of generality that this sequence is strictly decreasing (in its distances that is). Let $sigma$ be the unique function such that $a_nin X_{sigma(n)}times{sigma(n)+1}$. This clearly defines a partial choice as in the previous proposition, so $sf AC_omega$ holds. $square$
$endgroup$
The proof does appear in Herrlich and Steprans paper. It is the combination of propositions 4 and 5.
The first step is to prove that $sf AC_omega$ is equivalent to the following statement:
For each sequence of non-empty sets $(X_n)$ there exists a strictly monotone function $sigmacolonBbb{Nto N}$ with $prodlimits_{ninBbb N}X_{sigma(n)}neqvarnothing$.
Obviously $sf AC_omega$ implies this condition, to see the reverse implication, suppose this statement is true, take $A_n=prodlimits_{i=0}^n X_n$, these are non-empty sets. And the $sigma$ which exists witnessing $prod_{ninBbb N}A_{sigma(n)}$ defines a choice from $X_n$'s, by taking $(a_n)$ where $a_nin A_{sigma(n)}$, then $a_n=(x_0^n,ldots,x_{sigma(n)}^n)$. Since $nleqsigma(n)$ for all $n$, we can safely define the sequence $(x_n^n)$ as a choice from the $X_n$'s. $square$
The second proposition is this:
Proposition 5. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $sf AC_omega$.
- For each metric space $A$, the following are equivalent:
- $x$ is an accumulation point of $A$.
- There exists a sequence $(a_n)$ in $A$ with $a_nto x$.
- For mappings $f$ between metric spaces the following are equivalent:
- $f$ is continuous.
- $f$ is sequentially continuous.
Clearly $sf AC_omega$ implies the other two equivalences. And they are equivalent themselves, (3) implies (2) by taking the identity function, and (2) implies (3) because the failure of (3) is really just the failure of (2).
So we only have to show that (2) implies $sf AC_omega$. This is done as follows, take $(X_n)$ to be a sequence of non-empty sets, let $X$ be the following set, $$X={infty}cupbigcup_{ninBbb N}Big(X_ntimes{n+1}Big),$$
along with the metric:
$$dBig(langle x,nrangle,langle y,mrangleBig)=begin{cases}frac1n & n=m\left|frac1n-frac1mright|& nneq mend{cases}\
dBig(langle x,nrangle,inftyBig)=dBig(infty,langle x,nrangleBig)=frac1n\
d(infty,infty)=0$$
Since $infty$ is clearly an accumulation point of $A=Xsetminus{infty}$, by our assumption there is a sequence $a_ntoinfty$, and we may assume without loss of generality that this sequence is strictly decreasing (in its distances that is). Let $sigma$ be the unique function such that $a_nin X_{sigma(n)}times{sigma(n)+1}$. This clearly defines a partial choice as in the previous proposition, so $sf AC_omega$ holds. $square$
edited Mar 30 '13 at 16:03
answered Mar 30 '13 at 15:50
Asaf Karagila♦Asaf Karagila
303k32429761
303k32429761
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
Excellent, thank you for posting it. Interestingly, it is completely different from my own proof : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:56
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
I will accept already, then take my time to read and possibly ask follow-up questions.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Mar 30 '13 at 18:58
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
$begingroup$
It's not a very interesting result but suppose I had a slightly shorter and slicker (although very similar) proof -- are there any lesser journals that would accept an undergrad paper about a not so interesting already known result?
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 19:50
1
1
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
Nothing comes to mind, but depending on the actual proof it might be possible to generalize it and make it applicable for other things, and perhaps extend other results. In that case there is a nice chance of getting it published somewhere.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Apr 6 '13 at 19:52
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
$begingroup$
The application to other things was going to be stage two Oh well. Will just have to keep working. : )
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
Apr 6 '13 at 20:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f346526%2fproof-of-a-basic-ac-omega-equivalence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
@MattN.You should tag it Asaf Karagila.
$endgroup$
– Git Gud
Mar 30 '13 at 15:03
$begingroup$
No, actually. I very much disagree. There are at least 5 users whose answers (in general) I'd prefer over one of Asaf's.
$endgroup$
– Rudy the Reindeer
May 3 '13 at 11:27