Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics 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 superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI just started [[nonabelian homological algebra]].

   I just started nonabelian homological algebra.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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.

   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.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 29th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI want to quote interesting Tim's remarks from a bit obsolete query now erased in [[homological algebra]]: > [[Tim Porter|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'!

   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’!