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

Site Tag Cloud

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

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2010

    added details to Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem

    added the same to Hochschild cohomology

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014

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

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014
    • (edited Apr 8th 2014)

    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 …)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014


    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.



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

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014

    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).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2014

    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.)