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 nforum 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 24th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexIn the entry [[history of cohomology with local coefficients]] mention is made of Reidemeister's use of cochains on the universal cover taken with the action of the fundamental group. A bit later on it is written: Steenrod in 1942 independently generalized the concept of ordinary cohomology to cohomology with coefficients in a local system of groups, later known as cohomology with local coefficients. In 1943, he acknowledged Reidemeister’s precedence showing that (after a suitable interpretation) the theory includes Reidemeister’s concept of Überdeckung. I do not want to make any contentious point here, but would observe the Steenrod wrote the review of Reidemeister's book for the BAMS in 1939. Presumably the idea germinated and adapted unseen to be applied in the slightly different context 3 years later. This increases my wariness as to attribution of great and fundamental ideas on the basis of their 'invention'/ discovery by X rather than Y. Unfortunately the citations index culture is probably here to stay! (Perhaps we should delete `'independently'. I am not sure.) ------------------------------------- On another tack under the same heading, I am reading Isaksen's treatment of local systems on pro-simplicial sets (in his paper: D. C. Isaksen, A model structure on the category of pro-simplicial sets , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 353, (2001), 2805–2841) If anyone has the time I would appreciate a view on his definition of a local system (on a pro-space) as being an object of the colimit of the ind-category of local systems on the individual parts of the pro-space. I think this is alright (and am fairly certain that it is equivalent to a lax-colimit of them) but the lack of use of isomorphisms rather than identities in this seems a bit risky to me. This problem is useful/important because of the link with étale homotopy theory. The local systems seem to be over some sort of virtual fundamental groupoid that need not have any points/ objects. It looks in need of an overhaul but I do not see what overhaul and thus how t present it in what I am writing in a fairly elementary fashion.

   In the entry history of cohomology with local coefficients mention is made of Reidemeister’s use of cochains on the universal cover taken with the action of the fundamental group. A bit later on it is written:

   Steenrod in 1942 independently generalized the concept of ordinary cohomology to cohomology with coefficients in a local system of groups, later known as cohomology with local coefficients. In 1943, he acknowledged Reidemeister’s precedence showing that (after a suitable interpretation) the theory includes Reidemeister’s concept of Überdeckung.

   I do not want to make any contentious point here, but would observe the Steenrod wrote the review of Reidemeister’s book for the BAMS in 1939. Presumably the idea germinated and adapted unseen to be applied in the slightly different context 3 years later. This increases my wariness as to attribution of great and fundamental ideas on the basis of their ’invention’/ discovery by X rather than Y. Unfortunately the citations index culture is probably here to stay! (Perhaps we should delete ‘’independently’. I am not sure.)

   ---

   On another tack under the same heading, I am reading Isaksen’s treatment of local systems on pro-simplicial sets (in his paper: D. C. Isaksen, A model structure on the category of pro-simplicial sets , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 353, (2001), 2805–2841) If anyone has the time I would appreciate a view on his definition of a local system (on a pro-space) as being an object of the colimit of the ind-category of local systems on the individual parts of the pro-space. I think this is alright (and am fairly certain that it is equivalent to a lax-colimit of them) but the lack of use of isomorphisms rather than identities in this seems a bit risky to me.

   This problem is useful/important because of the link with étale homotopy theory. The local systems seem to be over some sort of virtual fundamental groupoid that need not have any points/ objects. It looks in need of an overhaul but I do not see what overhaul and thus how t present it in what I am writing in a fairly elementary fashion.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 24th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI checked up. In Steenrod's paper of 1942, he does not cite Reidemeister, but in a foot note says: It has come to the author's attention that "local coefficients" and Reidemeister's 'U"berdeckungen" (Topologie der Polyeder, Leipzig, 1938) are equivalent concepts. That is strange except (that like me) perhaps when reviewing a book he did not read every page!:-(

   I checked up. In Steenrod’s paper of 1942, he does not cite Reidemeister, but in a foot note says: It has come to the author’s attention that “local coefficients” and Reidemeister’s ’U”berdeckungen” (Topologie der Polyeder, Leipzig, 1938) are equivalent concepts.

   That is strange except (that like me) perhaps when reviewing a book he did not read every page!:-(