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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: G-CW complex

Bottom of Page

1 to 11 of 11

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2013

    started G-CW complex.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2013

    I added a bit about G-CW embedding into presheaves on Or(G).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2018
    • (edited Apr 12th 2018)

    moved the section on smooth G-manifolds from “Properties” to “Examples”.

    added pointer to Waner 80, who attributes this class of examples to Matumoto 71

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2021
    • (edited Mar 13th 2021)

    added pointer to

    • Takao Matumoto, On GG-CW complexes and a theorem of JHC Whitehead, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA 18, 363-374, 1971

    • Takao Matumoto, Equivariant K-theory and Fredholm operators, J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo 18 (1971/72), 109-112 (pdf)

    which is apparently the origin of the concept for equivariance groups being compact Lie groups.

    (A minute ago I also knew the original reference for finite groups, but now I seem to have lost it…)

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2021

    I have added pointer to

    for the origin of the concept of G-CW complexes over finite groups.

    It’s interesting that Bredon’s proposal to parametrize over the GG-orbit category precedes the proof of the equivariant Whitehead theorem by 4 years, and the proof of Elmendorf’s theorem by 16 years, given that it’s only the combination of these two theorems which justify Bredon’s idea on deeper grounds.

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v24, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2021

    Have expanded/improved the list of attributions for the Prop. (here) that GG-manifolds are GG-CW complexes.

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2021

    also pointer to:

    • Sören Illman, Section 2 of: Equivariant singular homology and cohomology for actions of compact lie groups (doi:10.1007/BFb0070055) In: H. T. Ku, L. N. Mann, J. L. Sicks, J. C. Su (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Compact Transformation Groups Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 298. Springer 1972 (doi:10.1007/BFb0070029)

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 13th 2021
    • (edited Sep 13th 2021)

    Have added a remark (here) that GG-CW-complexes for finite groups are equivalently CW-complexes with cellular group action.

    Then I have made explicit (here) – for the simple special case of finite groups GG – that binary products in k-spaces preserve GG-CW complex structure.

    I gather this is still true for compact Lie groups GG, “due to” the equivariant triangulation theorem – but what’s an actual proof of this implication?

    diff, v29, current

1 to 11 of 11

  1.