Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
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.
I put in an anchor to the reference and a couple of links to it. And renamed the page to Schlessinger’s criterion
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).
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.
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.
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.
1 to 6 of 6