3 replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Reopened

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statementshttps://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

Reopened

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

Reopened

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

2 added 18 characters in body
source | link

Reopened

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

Reopened

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.

1
source | link

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1193766/topology-of-sets-prove-or-disprove-the-following-statements was originally posted without any context or signs of effort. After others complained in the comments, OP actually fixed the question, explaining their thoughts on the problems, all of which were well-considered. This is a good outcome, all too rare, which we should encourage!

But then the question was closed anyway, belying the commenters who asked for clarification.

Let's reopen.