Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Somebody emailed me highlighting that the text green here, revision 69 of Dold-Kan correspondence does not quite parse.
I didn’t write this,though. There is a definition meant to be equivalent to that at combinatorial spectrum, but at least some indices need renamining, and it seems maybe more needs to be fixed or at least added. Not sure. Also I absolutely don’t have the leisure to look into this right now. I hope somebody finds the energy to look into it.
I emailed. The wrong indices Urs refers to are several instances of k in the definition of the category of stable simplices. Perhaps the definition should be: “The category of stable simplices has integer numbers as objects. Given two objects k and l, the set of morphisms from k to l is the set of order-preserving maps h from the set of natural numbers to itself such that h(n+1) = h(n)+1 for all but a finite number of n. […]”
I suppose that must have been meant, but then there still seems to be something missing.
BTW, at stable Dold-Kan correspondence (where I had blindly copied that paragraph to from Dold-Kan correspondence in an attempt to have a better entry layout) I have removed that definition entirely and replaced it by just a pointer to combinatorial spectrum. The definition given there is actually the one that Kan refers to in the article that is cited in the bit in question.
CommunicativeAlgebra,
since nothing seems to have happened since, would you have a second to contact Dmitri to ask him to either sort this out the way he envisioned it to be or else, if he has no time or interest, let one of us revise it? Thanks.
I corrected the formula, the previous variant was complete nonsense. Sorry about the confusion.
Thanks!!
1 to 6 of 6