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.
I have some edits for this page (https://pastebin.com/L7NTe7d3), but they keep getting rejected by the spam filter; could anyone tell me what’s wrong with them?
Intended edit comment:
Removed the incorrect quotient space description of $X\star Y$ (which was empty if one of $X$ or $Y$ is empty, i.e. $\varnothing$ is not a unit object) and added Milnor’s join construction (which has the same underlying set but the coarse topology w.r.t. the coordinate projections) to address Qayum Khan’s complaints. (I really ought to have defined infinitary joins with the colimit topology (which is a nice coend) and with Milnor’s ‘strong’ (=coarse) topology, which tom Dieck’s Algebraic topology uses to define $EG = G^{\bar\star\omega}$ in one go; maybe next time…) I also added the definition of the fibrewise (Milnor) join of spaces, and its role in Strøm’s construction of the (cofibration, acyclic fibration)-factorization in the h-model structure.
Seems to have worked. Please check if your edits are there as intended.
Sometimes strings inside unusual author names or the like trigger the spam filter (eg “Tangora” was once rejected, for including “Tango” :-)
but otherwise it seems to reject edits that it considers suspiciously voluminous. In this case one can work around it by submitting smaller bits of new material at a time
(I believe me and other regulars have been exempt from this, which may be the reason why I could submit your material.)
I believe the pushout description is correct (e.g., if $X$ is empty, then the construction boils down to $Y$); was there something else that was meant by quotient space construction?
Oh, I see, we have the editing history back. I see it now.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I was doing this from my phone. Let me get to my laptop and salvage this….
Oh, I was posting during #10. Looks no worse than what I wrote 😅
Maybe what you want is “$\overline{\star}$”? Try this:
\overline{\star}
Ah yes, \overline{\star}
looks good (without the \mathbin{}
, with which it isn’t even valid iTeX…). The references are fixed, spam filter placated, \star
s \overline
d, i’s crossed and t’s dotted. Thanks for the help, and goodnight!
1 to 15 of 15