Talk:Weak topology

message: Quick question: is there any reason for the author(s) of the subsection "Weak-* convergence" to switch back and forth between \phi and \varphi?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:502:A006:213:72FF:FE9F:2852 (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Weaker topology isn't the same as weak topology, which is often used with the specific meaning given in the current article. Lupin 23:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The current definition of the weak star topology is wrong. If X is a reflexive space, then T:X\to X^{**} is an isometric isomorphism an the initial topology with respect to it therefore produces the norm topology on X.
I know the terminology "weak-*-topology" only in cases where X is a priori a function space and so the topology of pointwise convergence is meant. If there really is a general definition of "weak star topology" for non-reflexive spaces, then someone should write it in this section. If there isn't and all we have is the case of function spaces, then the section should be replaced by a diskussion of pointwise convergence (meaning: delete the false definition and only use the following section). 78.53.90.64 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak star topology 

message: Bounded weak topology is described in German wikipedia: . Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bounded weak topology 

message: This article calls "strong topology" to what I think it should be called "norm topology", since "strong topology" has a different meaning for spaces of operators between normed spaces, which
are of course normed spaces themselves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.92.4.4 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the use of the term "strong topology" 

message: There is a false belief about Wikipedia mathematics articles, namely that as long as they are not mathematically incorrect, that is the only criterion for being "good".
No. It is essential that they explain their subject matter the way you would explain it to a friend who wants to learn about the subject.
Any article that delves into the mathematical formalism of the weak topology without stating what the open sets of this topology are, or at least a base for the open sets, or at the very least a subbase for the topology, is a truly bad article.
I have trouble understanding how anyone could imagine writing such an article without about a topology without stating at least a subbase for the open sets.
Not far, far down in the article, but right where the topology is first described. 2601:200:C000:1A0:55C0:140D:2395:B94 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptionally bad article 

message: I consider that this expression is misleading, since for the topology derived from the usual norm of continuous linear maps between normed spaces, convergence does not mean uniform convergence on the whole space but only on the unit ball - because in the formula for the norm, the supremum is taken on this ball. May-be one could accept this expression due to the fact that uniform convergence on the whole space would mean for linear maps the same as with discrete topology. But a warning seems to be needed. Moreover this still could create confusion in contexts where also non linear maps are discussed ... UKe-CH (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the "topology of uniform convergence" 

message: The redirect Weak compactness has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 20:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Weak compactness]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]