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.)
]]>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).
]]>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.
]]>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?
]]>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 …)
]]>I added a section on McCarthy and Minasian’s generalization of the HKR theorem to the setting of ring spectra.
]]>added details to Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem
added the same to Hochschild cohomology
]]>