bio  website  math.jhu.edu/~beardsle 

location  Baltimore, MD  
age  28  
visits  member for  4 years, 8 months 
seen  18 hours ago  
stats  profile views  2,798 
Learning.
3h

awarded  Nice Question 
18h

comment 
“Higher” Tangent spaces in charp geometry  definition?
Sorry, I also don't feel like I really understand the question, but socalled HasseSchmidt derivations give a rather natural extension of something that plays the role of the tangent space. These also have a sensible relationship to jet spaces, which can be thought of as higher "tangent spaces" in a sense. See here arxiv.org/pdf/math/0407113.pdf 
Jul
19 
comment 
Quasicategorical Construction of a Cosimplicial Map of Rognes
Oh, and it is precisely a shearing map, I'm just trying to build it "coherently" in some sense. 
Jul
19 
comment 
Quasicategorical Construction of a Cosimplicial Map of Rognes
Au contraire @DylanWilson I think both of those comments might be immensely useful. Thanks! 
Jul
19 
revised 
Quasicategorical Construction of a Cosimplicial Map of Rognes
added 101 characters in body 
Jul
18 
reviewed  Approve formal group laws of Abelian varieties in positive characteristic 
Jul
18 
asked  Quasicategorical Construction of a Cosimplicial Map of Rognes 
Jun
22 
accepted  $\Omega X$action on spectral $X$bundles 
Jun
22 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
But yeah, I'm not being complicated at all with the algebra structure on the internal hom object, I'm truly just working through your first paragraph. I guess the point is that I should do it all with universal properties, in this case the universal property of $X^X$. 
Jun
22 
accepted  Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms 
Jun
22 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
In other words, an arbitrary map $M\to M$ is not necessarily an algebra action of $1_C$ on $M$ (obviously). So, ok. I guess that settles it. 
Jun
22 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
I think maybe I don't really understand the nature of $C[X]$. I guess I was thinking the objects of $C[X]$ were the data $(C, C\otimes X\to X)$ AND a bunch of higher coherence data. But I guess that that higher coherence data is only put in when you consider algebras of this category. 
Jun
22 
revised 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
added 31 characters in body 
Jun
22 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
In fact, since an $A$module is given by a map $N(\Delta)^{op}\times \Delta^1\to Top$, I suspect that the relevant map of algebras is precisely the adjoint $N(\Delta)^{op}\to Map(\Delta^1,Top)$ which picks out the map from $A$ to $End(M)$ as algebras. 
Jun
22 
revised 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
added 102 characters in body 
Jun
22 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
It may also be fruitful to think about the map $A\times M \to M$ as being part of a simplicial object that Lurie refers to as a "left action object." I'm trying to fiddle with that right now. 
Jun
21 
comment 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
@TheoJohnsonFreyd yes you definitely also need that data. I'm not really mentioning it. I mean, quasicategorically you need a LOT of data (all the higher associativity morphisms), so it'd be nice to get that somehow without specifying an infinite list of $n$morphisms 
Jun
21 
revised 
Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms
added 266 characters in body 
Jun
21 
asked  Lurie's Endomorphism Space vs. Endomorphisms 
Jun
17 
revised 
$\Omega X$action on spectral $X$bundles
added 21 characters in body 