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 computer-science constructive cosmology 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 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 science 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
   • CommentTimeJul 21st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexNew entry (improvized, check co- etc.) [[resolution]].

   New entry (improvized, check co- etc.) resolution.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 21st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a bit, trying to indicate the wider context.

   I added a bit, trying to indicate the wider context.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 26th 2017
   • (edited Sep 26th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI had occasion to link from an exposition that I am writing to the entry _[[homological resolution]]_, only to realize that its content was fairly chaotic. So I tried to give it a more expository helpful Idea-section. The last two paragraphs of what is now the Examples-section there are still in need of improvement, I feel, but I didn't touch these. There was one more paragraph which went on about orbifolds. I felt this didn't belong to "homological resolution", but maybe to _[[resolution]]_. Turning there, I found again a very unsatisfactory Idea-section, and so I went ahead and added a few lines that hopefully improve on it a little. Then I made sure these entries are cross-linked with _[[simplicial resolution]]_... only to discover -- you are guessing it already -- that this entry is in bad shape. But I am out of steam now. If anyone feels in expository mood, that entry would be a good place to turn some energy to.

   I had occasion to link from an exposition that I am writing to the entry homological resolution, only to realize that its content was fairly chaotic. So I tried to give it a more expository helpful Idea-section. The last two paragraphs of what is now the Examples-section there are still in need of improvement, I feel, but I didn’t touch these.

   There was one more paragraph which went on about orbifolds. I felt this didn’t belong to “homological resolution”, but maybe to resolution. Turning there, I found again a very unsatisfactory Idea-section, and so I went ahead and added a few lines that hopefully improve on it a little.

   Then I made sure these entries are cross-linked with simplicial resolution… only to discover – you are guessing it already – that this entry is in bad shape. But I am out of steam now. If anyone feels in expository mood, that entry would be a good place to turn some energy to.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeSep 27th 2017
   • (edited Sep 27th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexShould mention be given and links made here to comonadic resolutions and even the old step-by-step idea of Michel André, which emphasises the similarity with defining a CW-complex by adding cells to already existing stuff? (Edit: Do we have an entry for comonadic resolution under some other name? I found three links but all grey ones and no active one.)

   Should mention be given and links made here to comonadic resolutions and even the old step-by-step idea of Michel André, which emphasises the similarity with defining a CW-complex by adding cells to already existing stuff?

   (Edit: Do we have an entry for comonadic resolution under some other name? I found three links but all grey ones and no active one.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeSep 27th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is the discussion in [[bar construction]] but that does not have a lot of the references to the early stuff by Barr and Beck, in the Triples seminar lecture notes, nor the original in Godement and to the extensive work by Duskin. I thought the use of bar's was due to Eilenberg and Mac Lane.

   There is the discussion in bar construction but that does not have a lot of the references to the early stuff by Barr and Beck, in the Triples seminar lecture notes, nor the original in Godement and to the extensive work by Duskin. I thought the use of bar’s was due to Eilenberg and Mac Lane.