Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:35:16 -0800
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Terry/Padden wrote:
<marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hurray! As the context has been removed, the problem has disappeared. ;-)
It's the easiest way.
That is a lazy - and cowardly - reason.
Alternatively you could define
S^n as the one point compactification of R^n. That is,
add to R^n a point 'at infinity'.
The horror is materialising.
Lo and behold! The horror has materialized and it is you.
Why should everyday ordinary spheres haveA plane is a sphere with infinite radius.
anything to do with infinity ?
Why should everyday ordinary persons have any
thing to do with an infinitely sassy Aussi?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: Terry/Padden
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- References:
- Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: Terry/Padden
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: Terry/Padden
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: William Elliot
- Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- From: Terry/Padden
- Standard Topology on S^n ?
- Prev by Date: Re: interview question on primes
- Next by Date: Re: another cantorian disproven !!!!! :-D
- Previous by thread: Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- Next by thread: Re: Standard Topology on S^n ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|