Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 25th 2013
   • (edited Mar 25th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhile creating _[[double Lie algebroid]]_ I notied that we had a neglected entry _[[double groupoid]]_. I gave it a few more lines.

   While creating double Lie algebroid I notied that we had a neglected entry double groupoid. I gave it a few more lines.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 25th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have decided to split off _[[double Lie groupoid]]_, just to make the links work better. But for the moment this is just as stubby as _[[double groupoid]]_.

   I have decided to split off double Lie groupoid, just to make the links work better. But for the moment this is just as stubby as double groupoid.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded some text to the Definition-section at _[[double groupoid]]_.

   Added some text to the Definition-section at double groupoid.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 25th 2013
   • (edited Apr 25th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added a reference to a paper by Cegarra et al on double groupoids and homotopy types. This could be expanded on but should it be in a separate entry?

   I have added a reference to a paper by Cegarra et al on double groupoids and homotopy types. This could be expanded on but should it be in a separate entry?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 25th 2013
   • (edited Apr 25th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexLooks good to me. I put in redirects so that the link to _[[2-types]]_ works.

   Looks good to me.

   I put in redirects so that the link to 2-types works.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 25th 2013
   • (edited Apr 25th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexThere was a redirect to [[homotopy 2-type]], so I don't see why the link was not working. (Edit: I got rid of the redirects at [[homotopy n-type]] and fixed the others... it was a plural form that was missing. It seems to work now.)

   There was a redirect to homotopy 2-type, so I don’t see why the link was not working. (Edit: I got rid of the redirects at homotopy n-type and fixed the others… it was a plural form that was missing. It seems to work now.)

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 25th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOh. So you had linked to _[[2-type]]_ which at that time wasn't redirecting to anywhere. And I didn't realize that a stand-along entry _[[homotopy 2-type]]_ existed when I made it redirect to _[[homotopy n-type]]_. Okay, I'll interlink the two entries in a more evident fashion now...

   Oh. So you had linked to 2-type which at that time wasn’t redirecting to anywhere. And I didn’t realize that a stand-along entry homotopy 2-type existed when I made it redirect to homotopy n-type.

   Okay, I’ll interlink the two entries in a more evident fashion now…

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 25th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, now I see that we even have _[[homotopy 3-type]]_. In that case they should be all in the table. So I have expanded the table now a bit, and included it into the remaining entries: _[[homotopy n-types - table]]_

   Ah, now I see that we even have homotopy 3-type. In that case they should be all in the table. So I have expanded the table now a bit, and included it into the remaining entries:

   homotopy n-types - table