Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Community: Is This Question Appropriate?

Bottom of Page

1 to 17 of 17

  1.  
  1.  
    BEGIN Question

    During a rather long and drawn out discussion with a fellow MO user, it became apparent to me that I have a skewed view of the localic interpretation of topology. Regarding this ignorance, I would like to be informed, and at least have a decent understanding of the subject of 'pointless'/'point-free' topology. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible text on the subject? (ideally something written with an audience of point-set topologist in mind)
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology which are unique to the subject? (ie, not translations of results from general topology into localic language)

    While I do have reservation about the subject, they are for (the most part) aesthetic in nature. That having been said, like normal, I am genuinely interested, and as always, stubborn as hell, so I am game for anything.

    END Question


    Is this particular question appropriate for the main site?
  2.  
    I would suggest to leave the anecdotes out: "I seem to have a limited understanding of ... I would like to change this. As such, I have some questions: 1), 2)." Also, I would suggest to change "text" with "text or online reference" in question 1.
    If you go ahead and post this, make it CW, of course.
  3.  
    Andres,

    so something along these lines? had a feeling the anecdotes were pushing it, thanks


    During a rather long and drawn out discussion with a fellow MO user, it became apparent to me that I have a skewed view of the localic interpretation of topology. I seem to have a limited understanding of the subject, and I would like to change this. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible text or online reference on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology which are unique to the subject?

    While I do have reservation about the subject, they are for (the most part) aesthetic in nature. That having been said, like normal, I am genuinely interested, and as always, stubborn as hell, so I am game for anything.
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2011
     

    I for one tend not to enjoy declamations of ignorance as introductions. Why not just ask for references "because you are interested in the subject." Likewise, since the very basis of this question is your ignorance about the subject: what value do your reservations may have? It does not strike me as a great way to attract the attention of those that know well the subject, who usually coincide for the most part with those that like it at least a bit, to start off saying that you have reservations!

  5.  

    The first clause of the first sentence (possibly the first two sentences) is unnecessary, and I don't think you really need the last two either.

  6.  
    Mariano,

    I agree, and I will take out the last part, because you are right reading it again with new eyes, it does feel degrading to the subject. I have toned down the assertion of my own ignorance, but I feel my actions during this discussion warrant some mention and form of apology and humility.



    During a rather long and drawn out discussion with a fellow MO user, it became apparent I have a limited understanding of the localic interpretation of topology, and I would like to change this. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible texts or online references on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology which are unique to the subject?

    That having been said, like normal, I am genuinely interested, and as always, stubborn as hell, so I am game for anything.
  7.  
    Qiaochu, Mariano, Andres,

    Is this acceptable?


    I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible texts or online references on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology which are unique to the subject?

    Like normal, I am genuinely interested, and as always, stubborn as hell, so I am game for anything.
  8.  
    The last paragraph is not needed. The following should suffice:

    I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible texts or online references on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology which are unique to the subject?
    • CommentAuthorYemon Choi
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2011
     

    Andres: I think that your version of the question strips out slightly too much of the background, in that it is not clear "where the questioner is coming from", or "what the questioner is familiar with". (Many mathematical texts, in my opinion, are more accessible from certain directions/backgrounds than others.)

    If I were in Michael's position, I would personally be tempted to kick off with "As someone more used to point-set topology, who is familiar/unfamiliar with some basic lattice theory/algebraic geometry/whatever , I am looking..."

    What are other people's thoughts?

  10.  
    I agree, and this was my rational behind the long winded original version.
  11.  
    So, are we converging on something like the version below? It seems fine to me. (I am interested in answers to it, by the way.)

    As someone more used to point-set topology, I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology, of which I only have a limited understanding. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible texts or online references on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology that are unique to the subject, i.e., not translations of results from general topology into localic language?
  12.  

    I agree with Yemon's suggestion: rather than the "anecdotal" descriptions of your background, as in your phrasing

    During a rather long and drawn out discussion with a fellow MO user, it became apparent I have a limited understanding of the localic interpretation of topology, and I would like to change this.

    or

    Like normal, I am genuinely interested, and as always, stubborn as hell, so I am game for anything.

    why not just say something concrete, and that is more likely to be helpful to others intending to answer, or hoping to understand? Yemon's template looks like a good start:

    "As someone more used to point-set topology, who is familiar/unfamiliar with some basic lattice theory/algebraic geometry/whatever , I am looking..."

    That said, this is all fine --- just offering fine tuning suggestions!

  13.  
    I think that is perfect.
  14.  
    final draft?


    As someone more used to point-set topology, who is unfamiliar with the inner workings of lattice theory, I am looking to learn about the localic interpretation of topology, of which I only have a limited understanding. As such, I have some questions:

    1) What are some accessible texts or online references on the subject?
    2) What are some recent results in point-free topology that are unique to the subject, i.e., not translations of results from general topology into localic language?
  15.  
    That seems fine. I would say, go ahead.
  16.  
    Thank you, Andres, Scott, Yemon, Qiaochu, and Mariano, for your help and suggestions.
    • CommentAuthorMariano
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2011 edited
     

    Rational​e :)

    (writing that was a little fight against markdown. Yay for yet another markup language! )

1 to 17 of 17

  1.  
Back to Discussions Top of Page