Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
have added this pointer:
added pointers on relation of complex cobordism cohomology with divisors, algebraic cycles and Chow groups:
Burt Totaro, Torsion algebraic cycles and complex cobordism, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997), 467-493 (doi:10.1090/S0894-0347-97-00232-4)
added briefly something to Ricci flow, amplifying that it is the gradient flow of the action functional of dilaton gravity (equivalently: the renormalization group flow of the string-sigma-model coupled to gravity and dilaton)
starting somethng. For the moment just checking what literature exists. So far I am aware of this:
Andrew Baker, Some chromatic phenomena in the homotopy of , in: N. Ray, G. Walker (eds.), Adams Memorial Symposium on Algebraic Topology, Vol. 2 editors, Cambridge University Press (1992), 263–80 (pdf, BakerMSp.pdf:file)
Ivan Panin, Charles Walter, Quaternionic Grassmannians and Pontryagin classes in algebraic geometry (hal:00531725, pdf)
Ivan Panin, Charles Walter, Quaternionic Grassmannians and Borel classes in algebraic geometry (arXiv:1011.0649)
Ivan Panin, Oriented theories and symplectic cobordism, Seminar
brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references at MSp and quaternionic oriented cohomology theory (and maybe eventually at quasitoric manifold)
brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references at MSp and at quaternionic oriented cohomology theory
added a tiny bit of basics to complex oriented cohomology theory
brief category:people-entry for hyperlinking references at quaternionic line bundle
one more remark at relation between quasi-categories and simplicial categories
(to be expanded...)
At the old entry cohomotopy used to be a section on how it may be thought of as a special case of non-abelian cohomology. While I (still) think this is an excellent point to highlight, re-reading this old paragraph now made me feel that it was rather clumsily expressed. Therefore I have rewritten (and shortened) it, now the third paragraph of the Idea-section.
(We had had long discussion about this entry back in the days, but it must have been before we switched to nForum discussion, because on the nForum there seems to be no trace of it.)
For better readability, I have split off proper map (topology) from proper morphism (general) and added disambiguation. Added classes of examples at proper map.
am splitting this off as a stand-alone statement (from complex projective space)
Have cleaned-up the formulation of statement and proof and have generalized from ground ring the complex numbers to reals, complex numbers and quaternions.