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 categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    Hello. I’ve taken up a new cause. I made an article about schlessinger’s criterion. There seems to be very little about the higher category perspective on deformation theory. This is what I’m really interested in as a grad student, so I thought I’d try to fill in a few holes.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    I put in an anchor to the reference and a couple of links to it. And renamed the page to Schlessinger’s criterion

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    Funny enough, the entry is created about the same time when I created prorepresentable functor needed there and partly because of that very motivation (another that recently I study some shape theory, after a long time, hence involving lots of pro-objects).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2011

    Oh. That’s funny. When I did a quick check to see if “prorepresentable functor” existed, I didn’t pay attention to when it had been created. I just assumed it had been there awhile.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2011

    I’m going to turn this entry into something more general on “deformation functors,” since this is an important “classical” approach to deformation theory. I wasn’t sure if I should do a new page and just link to Schlessinger’s criterion when it came up, or just incorporate it in as a subtopic.

    Ultimately, I think it is better to have Schlessinger’s criterion as part of this new entry on deformation functors because there are so many assumptions that must be in place to talk about any of it, and these assumptions and terminology are the same for both.

    I won’t get it typed up for awhile, so don’t worry if you go to check it out and nothing is there yet.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2011

    I’ve done a first draft of deformation functor which was just converted from Schlessinger’s criterion. I think I should add more references, and some of the sections could be expanded.

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)