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.
Created:
Dmitri Faddeev (Russian: Дми́трий Константи́нович Фадде́ев) was a Russian mathematician working in Galois theory, group cohomology, and numerical linear algebra. He is the father of Ludwig Faddeev.
He discovered group cohomology independently of Eilenberg and MacLane; the publication of his first paper on this subject was delayed till 1947 because of World War II.
On group cohomology:
Added this (in response to a MathOverflow query):
Jeffrey C. Morton, Cohomological Twisting of 2-Linearization and Extended TQFT, arXiv:1003.5603.
Section 2 and 3 of Gijs Heuts and Jacob Lurie’s Ambidexterity, in: Topology and Field Theories, doi.
Section 3 of Daniel Freed, Michael Hopkins, Jacob Lurie, Constantin Teleman, Topological quantum field theories from compact Lie groups, arXiv:0905.0731.
added to group cohomology
in the section structured group cohomology some remarks about how to correctly define Lie group cohomology and topological group cohomology etc. and how not to
in the section Lie group cohiomology a derivation of how from the right oo-categorical definition one finds after some unwinding the correct definition as given in the article by Brylinski cited there.
it's late here and I am now in a bit of a hurry to call it quits, so the proof I give there may need a bit polishing. I'll take care of that later...
Hi Dmitri, I see you just made “pointed homotopy class” redirect here. But should it not redirect to “homotopy class”, since it’s about maps, not about spaces? I’ll add a line there to highlight the pointed case.
Created:
A generalization of homotopy groups.
Given a finitely generated abelian group and , we set
where is the th Peterson space of .
Franklin P. Peterson, Generalized Cohomotopy Groups. American Journal of Mathematics 78:2 (1956), 259–281. doi:10.2307/2372515
Joseph A. Neisendorfer, Homotopy groups with coefficients, Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications 8:2 (2010), 247–338. doi:10.1007/s11784-010-0020-1.
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking lecture notes at Hurewicz fibration
created quick entry on Eilenberg-Zilber theorem
(to go with simplicial deRham complex)
but check. I am really in a hurry now and have to leave it in a somewhat stubby state.
Created with the following content:
Given a finitely generated abelian group and , the th Peterson space of is the simply connected space whose reduced cohomology groups vanish in dimension and the th cohomology group is isomorphic to .
The Peterson space exists and is unique up to a weak homotopy equivalence given the indicated conditions on and .
There are counterexamples both to existence and uniqueness without these conditions.
For example, the Peterson space does not exist if is the abelian group of rationals.
For all , we have a canonical isomorphism
where the left side denotes homotopy groups with coefficients and the right side denotes morphisms in the pointed homotopy category.
Removed the following discussion to the nForum:
Zoran Škoda: But there is much older and more general theorem of Hurewitz: if one has a map and a numerable covering of such that the restrictions for every in the covering is a Hurewicz fibration then is also a Hurewicz fibration. But the proof is pretty complicated. For example George Whitehead’s Elements of homotopy theory is omitting it (page 33) and Postnikov is proving it (using the equivalent “soft” homotopy lifting property).
Todd Trimble: Yes, I am aware of it. You can find a proof in Spanier if you’re interested. I’ll have to check whether the Milnor trick (once I remember all of it) generalizes to Hurewicz’s theorem.
Stephan: I wonder if this trick moreover generalizes (in a homotopy theoretic sense) to categories other that ; for example to the classical model structure on ?
Created with the following content:
Arthur Geoffrey Walker was a professor at the University of Liverpool, working in differential geometry, general relativity, and cosmology.
In particular, he is responsible for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric in cosmology.
On vector fields as derivations:
some basics at FRW model (in cosmology)
Added:
Vector fields can be defined as derivations of the algebra of functions. See the article derivations of smooth functions are vector fields.
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking references at coset space and Samelson product
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking references at closed subgroup and at coset space
Based on a private discussion with Mike Shulman, I have added some explanatory material to inductive type. This however should be checked. I have created an opening for someone to add a precise type-theoretic definition, or I may get to this myself if there are no takers soon.
I have split off bisimplicial set and bisimplicial group from bisimplicial object
added pointer to the original reference (as kindly supplied by Dmitri over at Lie derivative):
Also cleaned up some text in this entry here.
gave the statement that derivations of smooth functions are vector fields a dedicated entry of its own, in order to be able to convieniently point to it
adding accents to the page name, to make Dmitri’s requested links work at localic group
I am unhappy with Lie derivative. In the previous version it defined the Lie derivative as a secondary notion, using the differential and the Cartan homotopy formula (for which I finally created an entry). I have added a bit mentioning vector fields etc. and a formula using derivatives for forms but this is still not the right thing. Namely, in my understanding the Lie derivative is a fundamental notion and should not be defined using other differential operators, but by the “fisherman’s derivative” formula. Second it makes sense not only for differential forms but for any geometric quantities associated to the (co)frame bundle, and in particular to any kind of tensors, not necessarily contravariant or antisymmetrized. For this one has a prerequisite which will require some work in Lab. Namely to a vector field, one associated the flow, not necessarily defined for all times, but for small times. Then for any one has a diffeomorphism, which is used in the fisherman’s formula. But fisherman’s formula requires the pullback and the pullback is usually defined for forms while for general tensor fields one may need combination of pullbacks and pushforwards. However, for diffeomorphisms, one can define pullback in both cases, and pullback for time flow corresponds to the pushforward for time . To define such general pullback it is convenient to work with associated bundles for frame or coframe bundle and define it in the formalism of associated bundles. In the coframe case, this is in Sternberg’s Lectures on differential geometry (what returns me back into great memories of the summer 1987/1988 when I studied that book). So there is much work to do, to add details on those. If somebody has comments or shortcuts to this let me know.
However, there is a scientific question here as well: what about when frame bundle is replaced by higher jet bundles, and one takes some higher differential operator for functions and wants to do a similar program – are there nontrivial extensions of Lie derivative business to higher derivatives which does not reduce to the composition of usual Lie derivatives ?
Added:
Originally due to
Added a reference:
A coordinate-free treatment first appeared in
added to inter-universal Teichmüller theory a pointer to the recent note
(Though after reading I am not sure if that note helps so much.)
I’ve removed this query box from metric space and incorporated its information into the text:
Mike: Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the symmetry axiom gives us enriched -categories?
Toby: Yeah, that could work. I was thinking of arguing that it makes sense to enrich groupoids in any monoidal poset, cartesian or otherwise, since we can write down the operations and all equations are trivial in a poset. But maybe it makes more sense to call those enriched -categories.
Added to noncommutative algebraic geometry a section “Relation to ordinary algberaic geometry” with what is really just a pointer to an article by Reyes:
The direct “naive” generalization of Grothendieck-style algebraic geometry via sheaves on a site (Zariski site, etale site etc.) of commutative rings-op to non-commutative rings does not work, for reasons discussed in some detail in (Reyes 12). This is the reason why non-commutative algebraic geometry is phrased in other terms, mostly in terms of monoidal categories “of (quasicoherent) abelian sheaves” (“2-rings”).
at Serre fibration I have spelled out the proof that that with then is exact in the middle. here.
(This is intentionally the low-technology proof using nothing but the definition. )
I made the former entry "fibered category" instead a redirect to Grothendieck fibration. It didn't contain any addition information and was just mixing up links. I also made category fibered in groupoids redirect to Grothendieck fibration
I also edited the "Idea"-section at Grothendieck fibration slightly.
That big query box there ought to be eventually removed, and the important information established in the discussion filled into a proper subsection in its own right.
touched the formatting in congruence, fixed a typo on the cartesian square, added a basic example
added more theorems to Cartesian fibration and polished the intro slightly
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking references at equivariant differential topology and equivariant bundle and maybe elsewhere
Removing an old discussion:
Is there a reason that you moved these references up here? We need them especially for the stuff about morphisms below. —Toby
Eric: What would a colimit over an MSet-valued functor look like?
Toby: That depends on what the morphisms are.
Eric: I wonder if there is enough freedom in the definition of morphisms of multisets so that the colimit turns out particularly nice. I’m hoping that it might turn out to be simply the sum of multisets. According to limits and colimits by example the colimit of a Set-valued functor is a quotient of the disjoint union.
Toby: I think that you might hope for the coproduct (but not a general colimit) of multisets to be a sum rather than a disjoint union. Actually, you could argue that the sum is the proper notion of disjoint union for abstract multisets.
Todd,
you added to Yoneda lemma the sentence
In brief, the principle is that the identity morphism is the universal generalized element of . This simple principle is surprisingly pervasive throughout category theory.
Maybe it would be good to expand on that. One might think that the universal property of a genralized element is that every other one factors through it uniquely. That this is true for the generalized element is a tautological statement that does not need or imply the Yoneda lemma, it seems.
It was pointed out to me today that in the very special case of internal (0,1)-category objects in Set, what we are calling a “pre-category” reduces to a preordered set, while adding the “univalence/Rezk-completeness” condition to make it a “category” promotes it to a partially ordered set. I feel like surely I knew that once, but if so, I had forgotten. It provides some extra weight behind this term “precategory”, especially since some category theorists like to say merely “ordered set” to mean “partially ordered set”.
I created inner product of multisets, which I hope will help make some sense of some speculations over at the discussion of magnitude of metric spaces.
Thank you Toby for your help on my personal wikiweb.
added missing pointer to commutative monoid in a symmetric monoidal category
Describing the arrangements which have been made for funding of the nLab in collaboration with the Topos Institute. The page, linked to from the home page, is intended to be fairly general; specific requests for donations can be made elsewhere.
polished and expanded adjoint (infinity,1)-functor
A comparatively long and technical section “From hom-functors to units and counits” (on adjoint functors) was sitting inside the Idea-section of adjunction. It seemed plainly misplaced there, and distracting attention from what should be the content of this entry, as opposed to the entry adjoint functor. So I have moved it now to where it seems to belong: inside the Examples-section.
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking references at slice theorem
brief category:people
-entry for hyperlinking references at slice theorem
I wanted the links to weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force in various entries to cease appearing grayish and ugly. So I created a minimal entry nuclear force.
This is a short article with a definition of the category of filters, now called the category of filters.
I apologise for vandalising by mistake the article on filters, and thanks to Richard Williamson for fixing this. I tried to “edit a current page .. in context on a relevant page” misunderstanding the intructions from HowTo:
How to start a new page
You do this in two steps, the first of which may have already been done:
Create a preliminary link (represented by a question mark) by editing > a current page and putting the name of the new page in double square brackets
Anonymous
Have added to HowTo a description for how to label equations
In the course of this I restructured the section “How to make links to subsections of a page” by giving it a few descriptively-titled subsections.
I have tried to give algebraic topology a better Idea-section.
this is a bare list of references, to be !include
-ed into relevant entries (such as D-brane, Dirac charge quantization and D-brane charge quantization in K-theory).
In fact, the list is that which has been in each of these entries all along, and it has been a pain to synchronize the parallel lists. So this here now to ease the process.