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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2012

    At simplex I have accompanied the definition of the cellular simplex with that of the topological simplex.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2012

    Added also singular simplex.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2012
    Never heard before of a cellular simplex - did not invoke an appropriate image
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2012

    Therfore I put “simplicial” in parenthesis: “Cellular (simplicial) simplex”.

    But I find for a defintion of the term it is unfair to the reader to speak of “simplicial simplex”. While correct, it feels a bit circular.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2012

    I think “simplicial simplex”, whatever its flaws, is much better than “cellular (simplicial) simplex”. In algebraic topology “cellular” almost exclusively refers to CW complexes and cell complexes.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2012

    Hm (or h’m, as Toby would write)… abstract or combinatorial simplex? In some older books, there is a distinction made between “abstract simplicial complex” and “geometric simplicial complex”, where the latter is a polyhedron or geometric realization of the former, more combinatorial notion.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
    • (edited Sep 6th 2012)

    I have expanded at simplex the section Topological simplex a good bit (just the standard stuff, but written out in some lengthy detail – well, it could be lenghtier still)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Following discussions on another thread, should cellular simplex perhaps rather mean ’topological simplex considered as a cellular / CW-complex’?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012
    • (edited Sep 6th 2012)

    Maybe the majority feeling here is inclined in that direction.

    But I find the distinction unhelpful. Even if you instist to think of topological simplices with cell decomposition, it’s still the same concept then up to equivalence (if you take homomorphisms to preserves cellular structure, which you should do): the simplicial simplex is the essence of the idea of the cellular topological simplex. That’s why people call elements of a simpliciat set n(\mathcal{X}_i, \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{X_n-cells, after all.

    But I won’t invest time in fighting for this perspective of mine. Somebody who feels terminologically authorized should please feel invited to edit the entry accordingly.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    That’s why people call elements of a simpliciat set n-cells, after all.

    I find they usually call them n-simplices more often than not.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Okay, I changed “cellular simplex” to “standard simplicial simplex”.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Urs, I added an observation under the cartesian-coordinate description of topological simplex which might be useful – if you’d rather format it differently, please be my guest.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    Thanks, Todd.

    if you’d rather format it differently, please be my guest.

    Yes, I gave it a formal remark home.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorColin Tan
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2015

    In barycentric coordinates, the (standard) topological nn-simplex is the subset of consisting of those points (x 0,,x n)\{\mathbb{R}}(x_0,\ldots, x_n) such that x 0++x n=1x_0 + \cdots + x_n = 1 and x 0,,x n0x_0,\ldots, x_n \ge 0. Hence the affine span of the topological nn-simplex is a codimension one affine subspace of n+1{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}.

    Is there a generalization of this concept of simplex where n+1{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} is replaced by an affine space of infinite dimension?

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2015

    It sounds like what you may be after is “free convex set on infinitely many elements”, construing convex sets as models of an algebraic theory. The same way that the nn-simplex would be the convex hull of n+1n+1 in “general position”, or formal convex combinations of n+1n+1 elements. This can be done, yes.

  1. The page currently displays the link for the first use of “simplicial set” as the HTML code for the link. I believe this should fix that.

    Anonymous

    diff, v32, current

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)