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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched etcs fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2018

    Order-theoretic version

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2018

    Actually, I think I’ve heard it used more generally for a functor from a totally ordered poset.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2018

    The use of chain as in chain complexes derives from the order theoretic use I suspect, but I am not sure. Does anyone know?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2018


    That seems like a straighforward generalization (remove the requirement of injectivity, generalize the codomain), although not one that I've seen that I can recall.


    How do you see that coming about? I don't see anything ordered there.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018
    • (edited Sep 18th 2018)

    The notation ,for example for chains of open sets in the nerve of a cover, when defining Cech homology etc., uses implicitly orders the elements making up the group of chains in the space. Perhaps even probably I should have written ’ from the use of order in their definition’, rather than saying ‘order theoretic’. It was coming from the intuition based on simplexes and the combinatorial formulae for their boundaries.

    Looking back at EIlenberg’s original paper on singular homotopy, (first page of introduction only as it is behind a paywall!!!), it seems that he is thinking of mapping polyhedra into the space, and the geometric intuition behind simplices and other polyhedra has a good deal of the intuition of order in it. However I do no know how people thought of the early chains, whether it was as a sequence of edges or whatever or as a collection of edges (with no order). Does any one know when ‘chain’ was first used in this contect? I think my point is that a physical chain is not a collection of rings, rather it is a sequence of linked rings, hence order is involves in its very existence as a chain.

  1. Interesting question, Tim! There is some information here.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2018

    Thanks, Richard. There are some interesting points made in the replies to that question.

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)