Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation 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-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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 sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownI have started an entry on the [[Mittag-Leffler condition]].

   I have started an entry on the Mittag-Leffler condition.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownHere is a nice little historical note that I think we should incorporate. I'll write it up later. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/14717/mittag-leffler-condition-whats-the-origin-of-its-name

   Here is a nice little historical note that I think we should incorporate. I'll write it up later.

   http://mathoverflow.net/questions/14717/mittag-leffler-condition-whats-the-origin-of-its-name

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeMar 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownGo ahead

   Go ahead

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThe entry gives unnecessary emphasis on the case when the inverse system is a sequence, which is not needed for the definition and basic properties of ML condition. I have corrected the statement that the ML pro-objects are essentially epimorphic, before it states that they are isomorphic to essentially epimorphic what is odd as essentially epimorphic means to be isomorphic to a pro-object which has bonding morphisms epic on the nose. So one should either say the latter or to skip "isomorphic".

   The entry gives unnecessary emphasis on the case when the inverse system is a sequence, which is not needed for the definition and basic properties of ML condition. I have corrected the statement that the ML pro-objects are essentially epimorphic, before it states that they are isomorphic to essentially epimorphic what is odd as essentially epimorphic means to be isomorphic to a pro-object which has bonding morphisms epic on the nose. So one should either say the latter or to skip “isomorphic”.