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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeDec 14th 2011
   • (edited Dec 14th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI'm considering rewriting and submitting section 5.1 (down to Corollary 5.17) of [my thesis](http://ncatlab.org/davidroberts/files/DMRthesis_final.pdf#page=173) to the nJournal. The core result is a minor extension of a special case of a theorem by Wada: certain path spaces have local connectivity properties if the original space has said property one dimension up. Apart from the main result, which was mostly a technical necessity for a construction in my thesis, the main interest would be in the collection of neighbourhood bases I give for the compact-open topology on certain path spaces. There are corollaries that certain quasitopological homotopy groups are actually discrete, but I didn't bother with these at the time. I would endeavour to nlabify this as much as possible, but I might need help with pictures. I have the source of the pictures (a graphics package, unfortunately), and can produce jpegs, gifs etc of them. Any thoughts?

   I’m considering rewriting and submitting section 5.1 (down to Corollary 5.17) of my thesis to the nJournal. The core result is a minor extension of a special case of a theorem by Wada: certain path spaces have local connectivity properties if the original space has said property one dimension up. Apart from the main result, which was mostly a technical necessity for a construction in my thesis, the main interest would be in the collection of neighbourhood bases I give for the compact-open topology on certain path spaces. There are corollaries that certain quasitopological homotopy groups are actually discrete, but I didn’t bother with these at the time.

   I would endeavour to nlabify this as much as possible, but I might need help with pictures. I have the source of the pictures (a graphics package, unfortunately), and can produce jpegs, gifs etc of them.

   Any thoughts?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 14th 2011
   • (edited Dec 14th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi David, I just have a second to look into this, will try to react in more detail a bit later. We need to finally install the editorial board! That should answer such questions. One quick question: Is theorem 5.12 the main statement here? Meant to improve on Wad55? (Maybe this question just means: when you submit, there needs to be an abstract :-) Another question: Do you really mean to include $X^I$ in the list of spaces that are $(n-1)$-connected if $X$ is $n$-connected? Seems to me that $X^I$ is weak homotopy equivalent to $X$, unless the endpoints of the paths are fixed?! Concerning the remark above the theorem, on transgression of structures: Nikolaus and Waldorf will have something on this, soon, see [here](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/11/higher_structures_2011.html#c040291).

   Hi David,

   I just have a second to look into this, will try to react in more detail a bit later.

   We need to finally install the editorial board! That should answer such questions.

   One quick question:

   Is theorem 5.12 the main statement here? Meant to improve on Wad55? (Maybe this question just means: when you submit, there needs to be an abstract :-)

   Another question:

   Do you really mean to include $X^I$ in the list of spaces that are $(n-1)$-connected if $X$ is $n$-connected? Seems to me that $X^I$ is weak homotopy equivalent to $X$, unless the endpoints of the paths are fixed?!

   Concerning the remark above the theorem, on transgression of structures: Nikolaus and Waldorf will have something on this, soon, see here.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeDec 14th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, $X^I$ is homotopy equivalent to $X$, but you can't use a homotopy equivalence to transfer a basis for a topology, so there is no reason to expect them to have the same local properties. Yes, I do need an abstract, but Theorem 5.12 is as close to a main theorem as one will get. There are a number of corollaries about mapping spaces of several sorts. And as far as editorial duties go, this is merely an informal question, asking people whether they feel this sort of thing is nJournal material. If I make a formal submission before the editorial board is finalised, and the standing comittee need to decide things, then clearly I will remove myself from all discussions.

   Yes, $X^I$ is homotopy equivalent to $X$, but you can’t use a homotopy equivalence to transfer a basis for a topology, so there is no reason to expect them to have the same local properties.

   Yes, I do need an abstract, but Theorem 5.12 is as close to a main theorem as one will get. There are a number of corollaries about mapping spaces of several sorts.

   And as far as editorial duties go, this is merely an informal question, asking people whether they feel this sort of thing is nJournal material. If I make a formal submission before the editorial board is finalised, and the standing comittee need to decide things, then clearly I will remove myself from all discussions.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 14th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi, have another second, but not more. > no reason to expect them to have the same local properties. Ah, I see. Since I just proved that this point is easy to miss on casual reading, maybe something to keep in mind for highlighting in the abstract. > And as far as editorial duties go, this is merely an informal question, asking people whether they feel this sort of thing is nJournal material. I feel it is perfectly fine. Just as a feedback: I am not an expert on the details, but if I were asked to referee this, two questions would immediately spring to my mind: 1. Since this is about a classical result from 1955, does the author make the point for why we need to reconsider it? 1. Is there some example or application that goes with this and makes us feel good about having the theorem and/or its new proof? Possibly both of these questions find plenty of answer in later sections of your thesis. Might it make sense to submit a bigger chunk of it?

   Hi,

   have another second, but not more.

   no reason to expect them to have the same local properties.

   Ah, I see. Since I just proved that this point is easy to miss on casual reading, maybe something to keep in mind for highlighting in the abstract.

   And as far as editorial duties go, this is merely an informal question, asking people whether they feel this sort of thing is nJournal material.

   I feel it is perfectly fine.

   Just as a feedback: I am not an expert on the details, but if I were asked to referee this, two questions would immediately spring to my mind:

   1. Since this is about a classical result from 1955, does the author make the point for why we need to reconsider it?

   2. Is there some example or application that goes with this and makes us feel good about having the theorem and/or its new proof?

   Possibly both of these questions find plenty of answer in later sections of your thesis. Might it make sense to submit a bigger chunk of it?