10-327/Classnotes for Thursday November 25: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:


[http://katlas.org/drorbn/images/3/38/10-327_Nov_25_LecNotes.pdf Lecture Nov 25]
[http://katlas.org/drorbn/images/3/38/10-327_Nov_25_LecNotes.pdf Lecture Nov 25]

=== Question ===
Question. The first half of Tietze's theorem isn't very surprising as a limiting process of approximations.
But the second half is just like a magic? I don't understand what has been implicitly used here. The "boundedness"
property only depends on the metric we define on a set and it does not have anything to do with topology.
We are linking R with (-1,1) with a homeomorphism which is completely not metric-related. And suddenly all the unbounded
cts functions all become bounded cts functions?......What has been used here? Did we implicitly redefined the metric?
Why it works out so smoothly just like a magic trick?...

-Kai

Revision as of 14:12, 5 December 2010

See some blackboard shots at BBS/10_327-101125-142103.jpg.

Dror's notes above / Student's notes below

Here is a lecture note for today:

Lecture Nov 25

Question

Question. The first half of Tietze's theorem isn't very surprising as a limiting process of approximations. But the second half is just like a magic? I don't understand what has been implicitly used here. The "boundedness" property only depends on the metric we define on a set and it does not have anything to do with topology. We are linking R with (-1,1) with a homeomorphism which is completely not metric-related. And suddenly all the unbounded cts functions all become bounded cts functions?......What has been used here? Did we implicitly redefined the metric? Why it works out so smoothly just like a magic trick?...

-Kai