Not signed in (Sign In)

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 book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma 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 finite 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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    At present the entry double complex has a definition that say ’bla bla’!!!!! What was intended for there????

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    What was intended for there????

    The actual definition.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012
    • (edited May 4th 2012)

    Yeh! but in which form. Mac Lane Homology gives one form if I remember correctly, but there is another. In one the squares commute in the other they anti-commute.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    Feel free to add all equivalent definitions that you can think of!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    Commuting squares is convenient if you want to define a double complex as a chain complex in the category of chain complexes. Anticommuting squares is convenient for defining the total complex (for computing total homology).

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    At chain complex are the boundary morphisms differentials or codifferentials. Both seem to be used.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    Tim,

    it’s clearly a stub. It was written in a nanosecond years back just so that the link to it wouldn’t be gray. Just go ahead and edit it. I trust whichever way you do will be fine. After all, this is just about double complexes, isn’t it?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012

    Or Zhen: please feel free to edit the entry!

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012
    • (edited May 4th 2012)

    I have started, but, Zhen, please feel free to add the other definition yourself as I may not have that much time in the near future.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2012

    I just modified your text a little and added it in.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2012
    • (edited May 5th 2012)

    You wrote almost exactly what I would have done. :-) I added a line to the first version. but there is a glitch in my original Tex as I forgot a space. I will fix it. I also changed \sqcup to ++ as it is more usual.

    (By the way, why not start a home page on yourself. Just giving a stub if you want. It would get rid of the nasty question mark after your edits. :-)) (Edit: Re:your page: Great and welcome.)

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2012
    • (edited May 5th 2012)

    Thanks!, to you two, for taking care of this!

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2012

    added a bit more… there is still some bla bla to change!

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
    • (edited Aug 28th 2012)

    I have edited the Idea-section at double complex a bit:

    • first of all I moved the picture of the double complex right to the very top, for I think this is what most immediately conveys the idea and the Idea-section should try to get the basic Idea across as quickly as possible.

    • but I changed the labelling a bit, compared to the diagram as it appeared earlier:

      • I made the first index be the horizontal one and the second the vertical one, for I think this is the pretty universally established convention (no?).

      • then I removed the subscripts X{}_X from the differentials. Since there is just a single double complex under discussion, there is no need to label its differentials this way, and it just clutters up the diagram.

    • I slightly edited the wording in the Idea-section where it comes to the total complex and the sign convention.

    • In the discussion of the bifunctors I made the notation of the three categories involved be consistent over the two displayed formulas;

    • I fixed the redirects: notice that it has to be

      [[!redirects
      

      instead of

      [[!redirect
      

    I hope all this is uncontroversion, but let me know if you disagree.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012

    There is the problem that the idea section says that all squares commute but there is another which looks at the case where they anti-commute. This suggests that a note be added early on to comment on this. I have added a few words to point this out. We do discuss it further down the page.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012

    Hey Tim,

    just a few lines below your last change this point is already made.

    I’d rather not say it already where you just added it, because that makes the next statement about complexes of complexes be awkward. Also I’d rather never draw a diagram that is not meant to commute.

    So I’d be happier if we rolled back your last edit. But it’s not such an important point.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2012
    • (edited Aug 29th 2012)

    I will roll back, no problem, but the wording lower down seems a bit strange in places.

    and the interest in double complexes is often that in these total complexes.

    I suggest: Often it is such total complexes that are of interest. (with a full stop at the end of the previous sentence of course!)

    The next sentence about the differential is also a bit awkward. It only becomes clear at the bottom of the page. I will make some changes on the entry but of course, feel free to change back or change further.

    Double complexes also occur in algebraic topology with fibrations etc, so I changed ’usually’ to ’often’ a bit further down.

    Perhaps this entry still needs tweeking, as it still reads awkwardly in places.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2012
    • (edited Aug 29th 2012)

    but the wording lower down seems a bit strange in places.

    and the interest in double complexes is often that in these total complexes.

    These place have been there all along as you were editing the entry up to and including the revision number 10. But feel free to change the wording. After all, this is a rather elementary entry, I am sure you’ll find a wording that does it justice.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2012

    A wording may not strike one as being awkward the first time you see it, but later it seems …. ! That will always be a problem.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2012
    Is there a li k to multicomplexes (multi-complexes?)
    Is there a comment about total = hyper?
    I should look but my 19 month old grandson preoccupies my time.
    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012
    In terms of complexes of complexes, is there a link or reference to the case in which an initial complex is a resolution as an X of something Y
    and then that resolution complex is resolved as a Z?
    X, Y and Z being appropriate categories?
    cf. Sagave: DG algebras nad derived Ainfty-algebras
    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012
    • (edited Nov 12th 2012)

    Not sure, are you maybe looking for something along the lines of resolution of a chain complex ?

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2012
    Indeed that's a special case and all Sagave needs, but that has the additional requirement that the complex be exact in one direction.
    I do like that you included ``fully projective (or proper)'' - the first alternative being much more communicative.