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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownadded details to [[Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem]] added the same to [[Hochschild cohomology]]

   added details to Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem

   added the same to Hochschild cohomology

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Jon Beardsley
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a section on McCarthy and Minasian's generalization of the [[HKR theorem]] to the setting of [[ring spectra]].

   I added a section on McCarthy and Minasian’s generalization of the HKR theorem to the setting of ring spectra.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • (edited Apr 8th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexThe first sentence >The Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem identifies the Hochschild homology and -cohomology of certain algebras with Kähler differentials and derivations, respectively. reads as if something was missing. (This may be more an impression than a fact, but ...)

   The first sentence

   The Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem identifies the Hochschild homology and -cohomology of certain algebras with Kähler differentials and derivations, respectively.

   reads as if something was missing. (This may be more an impression than a fact, but …)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexJon, thanks!! Excellent that you added this. I have just done some editorial work on your addition, adding more formatting and more hyperlinks. Please check [here](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg+theorem#ForRingSpectra) that I didn't mess up something. $\,$ Tim, I have added the word "their" to the first sentence. Does that help?

   Jon,

   thanks!! Excellent that you added this.

   I have just done some editorial work on your addition, adding more formatting and more hyperlinks. Please check here that I didn’t mess up something.

   $\,$

   Tim,

   I have added the word “their” to the first sentence. Does that help?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI have a feeling that Tim means a few more words like "modules of". Acting on an instinct, I put them in, but obviously this action could be reversed if it is wrong.

   I have a feeling that Tim means a few more words like “modules of”. Acting on an instinct, I put them in, but obviously this action could be reversed if it is wrong.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexCartainly not wrong! That's after all what it says right below in the Proposition (and of course it's a classical textbook fact, too).

   Cartainly not wrong! That’s after all what it says right below in the Proposition (and of course it’s a classical textbook fact, too).

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexActually it was the `-cohomology' that threw me. Rereading it I now understand that what is intended was Hocchschild-cohomology. (There was not a - on the homology and that confused me. I will delete the - as it does not help.)

   Actually it was the ‘-cohomology’ that threw me. Rereading it I now understand that what is intended was Hocchschild-cohomology. (There was not a - on the homology and that confused me. I will delete the - as it does not help.)