Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: Timothy Murphy <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:32:08 +0100
David C. Ullrich wrote:
But the statement that G** = G does not look to me
like a problem in Banach algebra.
Aargh. "in Banach algebra". When you say that it really
_is_ like fingernails scraping on a blackboard.
I don't understand your problem with this expression.
Is English your native language?
It seems to me that "in Banach algebra"
is a perfectly acceptable usage for "in the theory of Banach algebras".
Would you object to someone saying "a problem in Lie algebra"?
Or "a problem in algebraic topology"?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: Jack Schmidt
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- References:
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- Prev by Date: Re: - - Algebraic and geometric multiplicities of eigenvalues
- Next by Date: Re: CERN concern
- Previous by thread: Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- Next by thread: Re: Pontryagin duality (again)
- Index(es):