Re: F_sigma
- From: "David Macmanus" <macmanus@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 20:45:11 +0000 (UTC)
"Arturo Magidin" <magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:del9n2$5vj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >It says: A set which is a countable union of closed sets is called an
> >F_sigma, **F for closed**, sigma for sum.
> >Looks like I misunderstood F for closed to mean that the F_sigma is
> >closed. It seems this isn't the case, but you can see how I got the
> >impression. Beats me why people don't write better maths
> >books...........
>
>
> It is explaining to you why the terminology "F_sigma". Because it is a
> "sum of closed"; your confusion arose from trying to interpret each
> part of the notation separately.
>
> Beats me why people think you can understand a sentence by examining
> its parts in isolation.
They use the word closed but they don't make it clear whether they are
referring to the F_sigma itself or the fact that the sets making up the
F_sigma are closed. Even you must agree that this ambiguous, or at least
they don't make it clear how the word 'closed' applies.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: F_sigma
- From: Dave Rusin
- Re: F_sigma
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: F_sigma
- References:
- F_sigma
- From: David Macmanus
- Re: F_sigma
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: F_sigma
- From: David Macmanus
- Re: F_sigma
- From: Arturo Magidin
- F_sigma
- Prev by Date: Lebesgue measure and integration
- Next by Date: Re: Lebesgue measure and integration
- Previous by thread: Re: F_sigma
- Next by thread: Re: F_sigma
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|