43,348 reputation
458129
bio website sites.google.com/site/…
location Fiji
age 38
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen 3 hours ago

I'm a lecturer of mathematics at the University of the South Pacific. My research interests are in algebraic topology and metric geometry.


Jan
4
reviewed Close logarithm problems
Jan
4
reviewed Close Prove an identity for an inner product
Jan
4
reviewed Close How many ways to divide 11 people into 3 groups of 3 and one group of 2?
Jan
4
revised does closed under sequence limits imply the set is closed?
added 13 characters in body; edited title
Jan
4
comment What is a necessary and sufficient condition for a Taylor series to exist?
tautologically, being analytic.
Jan
4
answered does closed under sequence limits imply the set is closed?
Jan
4
comment What is a necessary and sufficient condition for a Taylor series to exist?
not necessarily.
Jan
4
answered What is a necessary and sufficient condition for a Taylor series to exist?
Jan
3
answered Borel $\sigma$-Algebra on Real Numbers and interval elements
Jan
2
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
1
comment Probability of a point lying in a space
please read my previous comment.
Jan
1
comment Probability of a point lying in a space
and once a probability measure is chosen the correct answer can be anything between $0$ and $1$, so no, the correct answer is not (necessarily) $0$.
Jan
1
comment Probability of a point lying in a space
@DheerajKumar how does that matter? There is no such thing as randomly choosing anything, except from a sample space with one point. You must specify the probability distribution, and as soon as there are more than one point, there are infinitely many such probability distributions.
Jan
1
awarded  Enlightened
Jan
1
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
1
comment Probability of a point lying in a space
There is no such thing is "picking a point at random". You must specify the probability distribution, otherwise you did not pose a question.
Dec
31
comment Why can't suspace topologies be the empty set?
Some texts have a preference to exclude empty things as sub-things. Or perhaps the author excluded the empty space as a topological space by requiring every topological space to have at least one point. For a topological space the empty subset is certainly a subspace.
Dec
31
comment Can we teach calculus without reals?
Then it seems the simplest approach is to define all the reals. There are numerous definitions and they are all relatively simple, some very elementary. Attempting to define the describable reals in any clear and simple way seems impossible.
Dec
30
comment Can we teach calculus without reals?
@SteveJessop I don't quite understand. It's very easy to describe the uncountable set of all reals but it's very difficult to describe the countable set of the describable reals. Unless you can come up with a better calculus, one based on the describable reals, the burden of proof is upon you to substantiate that the easier route is somehow wrong. Yes, cardinalities are somewhat counterintuitive, but hey, it's a great way to improve one's intuition and learn something new. The fact the it's counterintuitive does not suggest it is wrong.
Dec
29
comment Can we teach calculus without reals?
What if it's really easy to describe the collection of all fish, but rather difficult to describe the collection of all those fish you can potentially actually meet (this is in fact exactly the case in real life). It's still useful information to say "all fish need oxygen to live" even though you will never encounter most of those fish, rather than say "all fish in this incredibly complicated to describe subset of fish which you can actually meet need oxygen to live". In other words, it is easier to describe the set of all reals than it is to describe only those reals you can describe.