Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2010
    • (edited May 25th 2010)

    created nerve theorem

    linked to it from homotopy groups in an (infinity,1)-topos, where it had implicitly been mentioned before, but not made explicit.

    Apart from stating the theorem, I wrote a section that explains what’s going on from the nPOV. As far as I can see, at least.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2010

    For which classes of paracompact spaces is one assured of the existence of a good cover?

    Manifolds, I presume, and CW complexes. What else?

    The nerve theorem is obviously a wonderful result in view of hoped-for higher-dimensional van Kampen theorems.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010
    • (edited May 26th 2010)

    For which classes of paracompact spaces is one assured of the existence of a good cover?

    I was hoping my local expert on good covers would have helped me with that by now, but he didn’t yet. But let’s try to sort this out.

    At least meanwhile I have polished and expanded the proof on my personal web that relates the nerve theorem to the left adjoint of the constant \infty-stack functor here.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010

    Just to expand on the case of manifolds for a moment: any paracompact manifold admits a Riemannian metric, and for any point in a Riemannian manifold there is a geodesically convex neighborhood (any two points in the neighborhood are connected by a geodesic in the neighborhood; see for example the remark after lemma 10.3 in Milnor’s Morse Theory, page 59). That should do the trick, since it is immediate that a nonempty intersection of two geodesically convex regions is also geodesically convex, hence contractible.

    I’d have to think a bit to convince myself of the case for CW complexes.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010

    Thanks, Todd. I moved that remark to here for the moment. But will have to call it quits now. See you tomorrow!

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010

    I added what is hopefully a more or less correct proof that CW complexes admit good covers to good open cover (under Properties).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010

    Thanks, Todd. Very nice!

    I added formal Proposition/Proof environments.

    For completeness, I also added the statement of the corollary that hence the category of paracompact manifolds and various of its subcategories admit coverages by good open covers.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2015

    I added several references to the nerve theorem article.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)