Topology Problems for Challenging Students

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter micromass
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topology
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on innovative approaches to teaching topology, specifically by introducing challenging problems to engage students. The instructor aims to enhance problem-solving skills by assigning thought-provoking tasks such as proving that \(\mathbb{R}\) cannot be expressed as the disjoint union of closed intervals and exploring connectedness in modified spaces. Participants contribute additional problem ideas, emphasizing the importance of intuition and curiosity in learning topology. The conversation highlights the need for effective problem assignments to improve student performance and understanding in topology courses.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic topology concepts, including connectedness and convergence.
  • Familiarity with metric spaces and their properties.
  • Knowledge of the Cantor set and its characteristics.
  • Experience with problem-solving in mathematical contexts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of the Cantor set and its implications in topology.
  • Explore the concept of connected versus path-connected spaces.
  • Study the implications of the Urysohn metrization theorem in topology.
  • Investigate examples of spaces where sequential continuity does not imply continuity.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics educators, topology students, and anyone interested in enhancing their understanding of advanced topology concepts through problem-solving.

  • #31
lavinia said:
no. try putting such a metric on the unit disk.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand.

What would be wrong with my metric on the unit disk? Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying- I define a new metric in terms of the older one. For any metric d, we can construct another one (called d^, say) which is defined as being equal to d except when d evaluates to a number larger than 1, in which case, you set d^ to return the value 1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Jamma said:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand.

What would be wrong with my metric on the unit disk? Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying- I define a new metric in terms of the older one. For any metric d, we can construct another one (called d^, say) which is defined as being equal to d except when d evaluates to a number larger than 1, in which case, you set d^ to return the value 1.

The unit disk under the usual metric and your modification, is compact.
 
  • #33
lavinia said:
The unit disk under the usual metric and your modification, is compact.

Oh, I think I see what you are getting at. I wasn't trying to imply that this procedure makes the space non-compact (the topology will be unaltered). All I'm saying is that for any non-compact complete metric space you can think of, if the metric isn't bounded then you can simply bound it in the way I described.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
15K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 100 ·
4
Replies
100
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
11K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
14K