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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics comma 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 group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nonassociative 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010

    I may be stupid, but I do not quite understand a sentence in homological algebra saying that “Homological algebra thus studies, in particular, the homology of chain complexes in abelian categories – therefore the name.” as a conclusion to the introduction about what the derived functors do. I do not understand, the homology of a complex is just an element of the formalism, it is not an example of what the previous text does – a derived functor. It is rather an example of a homological functor from a triangulated category to an abelian category.

    On the other hand the higher categorical and nonabelian analogues like homological algebra for crossed complexes is described in the article as a nonlinear analogue.

    But while the syzygies of Hilbert are often considered as a birthmark of homological algebra and give relations among linear relations, the nonlinear version which is earlier and due Cayley, is the computation of nonlinear relations among polynomials, that is nonlinear dependence, and than one is given by the theory of resultants. Cayley has computed a resultant of two polynomials as a determinant of the corresponding Koszul complex, so the linear homological algebra was usuful in this work. The generalizations for more polynomials are still not understood well enough.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010

    I want to quote interesting Tim’s remarks from a bit obsolete query now erased in homological algebra:

    Tim: I would support a different wording as well. The above does not make clear that, say, group (co)homology or Lie algebra (co)homology might be considered as subclasses of ’homological algebra’. It also does not really include the crossed homological algebra that Ronnie has developed. There is also the point, which sometime I will make more precise, that homological algebra is a linearised version of homotopical algebra and that there are crossed, quadratic and so on versions intermediate between the two.

    I am also slightly worried by too much emphasis on ’stable’ as this can be a ’weasel word’ like ’progress’!

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)