Why are unions, in particular, infinite unions, of open sets open allowed by the definition of topology? Such a condition allows for interiors of sets to always exist, but why does this matter?
In the context of metric (and in general first-countable) topologies, it's reasonably clear what a closed set is: a set $F$ is closed if and only if every convergent sequence of points in $F$ converges to a point also in $F$. This naturally generalises to the definition of a closed set in an arbitrary topological space using the concept of limit points... but limit points are defined in terms of open sets, which are, to me, somewhat more mysterious than closed sets.  I was once told that ultrafilters axiomatise the concept of (sets of) big sets. I'm hoping here to find a similar conceptual picture of topologies defined by systems of open sets, preferably without reference to closed sets. One such explanation I've seen is that open set axiomatise the concept of nearness, which, I suppose, is fair enough at least for metric topologies. Indeed, if something is "happening" at points near $x \in X$, then it's usually the case that every open neighbourhood $U \subseteq X$ of $x$ contains an open subset $V \subseteq U$, $x \in V$, such that the something "happens" at all points in $V$. But what about non-metrisable topologies, particularly the coarse ones where there are no "small" open sets?  Consider, for example, the Zariski topology on affine $n$-space $\mathbb{A}^n$. $\mathbb{A}^n$ is irreducible, so every non-empty open set is dense. It seems reasonable to interpret this to mean that every non-empty open set is "large". Indeed, if we work over the complex numbers, then in the usual metric geometry, Zariski-open sets are unbounded and have full measure, so are very large indeed, so I don't think it's fair to say that open sets are capturing the notion of nearness here.  I'm also curious about the history of point set topology. When were the axioms first written down? What were the first "non-geometric" examples of topological spaces — "non-geometric" here referring to either non-metrisable topologies or topologies on sets other than sets of points of some intuitively geometric object — and were they part of the motivations for creating point set topology?
Omitting the hypotheses of finiteness of the measure in Egorov theorem I want to prove that if I omit the fact that $\mu (X) &lt; \infty$ in Egorov theorem and place instead that our functions $|f_n| &lt;g$ and $g$ is integrable, we still get the result of Egorov's theorem.  Fix $m$ a natural number.  I took $ w_{n} = |f_n-f|$ and thus by DCT $\int |f_{n} - f|$ goes to zero.  Then I took $\bigcup_n {( w_{n} \geq 1/m)}$. I need its measure to be finite. Its measure is less than the sum of the measures of each $ w_n\geq 1/m)$ varying $n$, and by Tchebychev, this is less than $m\int|f_{n} - f|$.  But I got stuck here.  Any help is appreciated. Thanks! How would one go about proving that the rationals are not the countable intersection of open sets? How to permanently allow location access for a website in Safari 11? Show that $\sum_{n=0}^\infty r^n e^{i n \theta} = \frac{1- r\cos(\theta)+i r \sin(\theta)}{1+r^2-2r\cos(\theta)}$ The range of $T^*$ is the orthogonal complement of $\ker(T)$ How can I prove that, if $V$ is a finite-dimensional vector space with inner product and $T$ a linear operator in $V$, then the range of $T^*$ is the orthogonal complement of the null space of $T$?  I know what I must do (for a $v$ in the range of $T^*$, I have to show that $v\perp w$ for every $w$ in $\ker(T)$ and then do the opposite), but I don't know how to show that this inner product is zero. Consider this example (typical in OOP books):    I have an Animal class, where each Animal can have many friends. And subclasses like Dog, Duck, Mouse etc which add specific behavior like bark(), quack() etc.  Here's the Animal class:  public class Animal {     private Map&lt;String,Animal&gt; friends = new HashMap&lt;&gt;();      public void addFriend(String name, Animal animal){         friends.put(name,animal);     }      public Animal callFriend(String name){         return friends.get(name);     } }   And here's some code snippet with lots of typecasting:  Mouse jerry = new Mouse(); jerry.addFriend("spike", new Dog()); jerry.addFriend("quacker", new Duck());  ((Dog) jerry.callFriend("spike")).bark(); ((Duck) jerry.callFriend("quacker")).quack();   Is there any way I can use generics for the return type to get rid of the typecasting, so that I can say      jerry.callFriend("spike").bark(); jerry.callFriend("quacker").quack();   Here's some initial code with return type conveyed to the method as a parameter that's never used.   public&lt;T extends Animal&gt; T callFriend(String name, T unusedTypeObj){     return (T)friends.get(name);         }   Is there a way to figure out the return type at runtime without the extra parameter using instanceof? Or at least by passing a class of the type instead of a dummy instance. I understand generics are for compile time type-checking, but is there a workaround for this? How can I use variables in the LHS and RHS of a sed substitution? I want to do:  cat update_via_sed.sh | sed 's/old_name/new_name/' &gt; new_update_via_sed.sh   in my program.  But I want to use variables, e.g.  old_run='old_name_952' new_run='old_name_953'   I have tried using them but the substitution doesn't happen (no error). I have tried:  cat update_via_sed.sh | sed 's/old_run/new_run/' cat update_via_sed.sh | sed 's/$old_run/$new_run/' cat update_via_sed.sh | sed 's/${old_run}/${new_run}/' Evaluate the integral $\int_0^\infty \frac{dx}{\sqrt{(x^3+a^3)(x^3+b^3)}}$ This integral looks a lot like an elliptic integral, but with cubes instead of squares: $$I(a,b)=\int_0^\infty \frac{dx}{\sqrt{(x^3+a^3)(x^3+b^3)}}$$ Let's consider $a,b&gt;0$ for now. $$I(a,a)=\int_0^\infty \frac{dx}{x^3+a^3}=\frac{2 \pi}{3 \sqrt{3} a^2}$$ I obtained the general series solution the following way. Choose $a,b$ such that $a \geq b$, then: $$I(a,b)=\frac{1}{a^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{\sqrt{(t^3+1)(t^3+b^3/a^3)}}=\frac{1}{a^2} I \left(1, \frac{b}{a} \right)$$ $$\frac{b^3}{a^3}=p, \qquad I \left(1, \frac{b}{a} \right)=I_1(p)$$ $$I_1(p)=\int_0^\infty\frac{dt}{\sqrt{(t^3+1)(t^3+p)}}=2 \frac{d}{dp} J(p)$$ $$J(p)=\int_0^\infty\sqrt{\frac{t^3+p}{t^3+1}}dt=\int_0^\infty\sqrt{1+\frac{p-1}{t^3+1}}dt=$$ $$|p-1| \leq 1$$ $$=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \begin{array}( 1/2 \\ ~k \end{array} \right) (p-1)^k \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{(t^3+1)^k}$$ Now this is the most problematic part. The first integral of this series diverges. However, it's a constant in $p$, so if we differentiate, it formally disappears: $$I_1(p)=2 \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left( \begin{array}( 1/2 \\ ~k \end{array} \right) k (p-1)^{k-1} \int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{(t^3+1)^k}$$ Now, every integral in this series converges. The integtals can be computed using the Beta function, if we substitute: $$t^3=\frac{1}{u}-1$$ Finally, we rewrite: $$I_1(p)=\frac{\Gamma (1/3)}{3 \sqrt{\pi}} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{k^2}{k!^2} \Gamma \left(k- \frac{1}{2}\right) \Gamma \left(k- \frac{1}{3}\right) (1-p)^{k-1}$$ Or, using the Pochhammer symbol:  $$I_1(p)=\frac{2 \pi}{3 \sqrt{3}} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(k+1)^2}{(k+1)!^2} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)_k \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)_k (1-p)^k$$  My questions are:  Is the method I used valid (see the 'problematic part')? How to get this series into a Hypergeometric function form? Is there any 'arithmetic-geometric mean'-like transformation (Landen's transformation) for this integral? How to go about finding it?  If the method I used is correct, it can be used for any integral of the form ($m \geq 2$): $$I_m(a,b)=\int_0^\infty \frac{dx}{\sqrt{(x^m+a^m)(x^m+b^m)}}$$ Find the area of largest rectangle that can be inscribed in an ellipse The actual problem reads:      Find the area of the largest rectangle that can be inscribed in the ellipse    $$\frac{x^2}{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1.$$   I got as far as coming up with the equation for the area to be $A=4xy$ but then when trying to find the derivative I don't think I'm doing it right. I have a problem with the fancy package: I use the report documentclass and I have a chapter, a lot of text and then a new page starting with a section (or the next page has no chapter starting on that particular page).  The problem be, that what I defined for my header and footer is NOT on the chapter-page but only on the non-chapter page. How come? What did I miss?  Minimal example:  \documentclass[]{report}  \usepackage{lastpage} \usepackage{fancyhdr} % for use of \pageref{LastPage}  \fancypagestyle{IHA-fancy-style}{% \fancyhf{} %Clear header and footer \fancyhead[LE,RO]{\slshape \rightmark} \fancyhead[LO,RE]{\slshape \leftmark} \fancyfoot[C]{\thepage of \pageref{LastPage}} %Custom footer \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0.4pt} %Line at the header visible \renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0.4pt}} %Line at the footer visible  \title{A short example}  \begin{document}  \maketitle \tableofcontents  \pagestyle{IHA-fancy-style} \chapter{A chapter} Look at the footer  \newpage \section{A section} Look at the footer  \end{document}   Take notice: No line on page 2 at the bottom - a line on page 3 at the bottom.  Any clues? Is 'efficate' a word in English? I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used.  For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate."  I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary.  I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate".  It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way.  Wordnik has an  for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use.  I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it.  If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented. Are logs kept for past at jobs? How to remove conference information from the ACM 2017 SIGCONF template? What dried food can I take across the American border from Canada? Is complex conjugation needed for valid inner product? What are the benefits of using a conjugate linear inner product in a complex vector space vs a simple linear inner product?  That is, why do we demand that $(y,x) = \overline{(x,y)}$ as opposed to $(y,x)=(x,y)$?  Of course, this ensures that $(x,x)$ is real and thus makes an easy definition of norm, but is that necessary? Changing units of measurement in a simple regression model Add Windows 10 to GRUB OS list Given complex $|z_{1}| = 2\;\;,|z_{2}| = 3\;\;, |z_{3}| = 4\;\;$ : when and what is $\max$ of $|z_{1}-z_{2}|^2+|z_{2}-z_{3}|^2+|z_{3}-z_{1}|^2$ How to include graphics with spaces in their path? Metapost label based on variable value I want to label a scale based on a variable value and I wrote a metapost code like this.  $ := 1; for i = -.3cm step .6cm until 3.6cm:     label.bot(str$,(i,-3.7cm));     $ := incr($); endfor;   It just labels "$" instead of its value. How to output the variables value?