bio | website | sbseminar.wordpress.com |
---|---|---|
location | Bloomington, Indiana | |
age | 34 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 7 months |
seen | 26 mins ago | |
stats | profile views | 6,550 |
Assistant Professor at Indiana University, working on tensor categories and their relationships to operator algebras and topology.
Mar 31 |
comment |
Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism
The 12 seems to big to be easily geometrically explained, but it's enough to just show that the 3-torus is cobordant to $M \coprod M$ for some 3-manifold M. |
Mar 31 |
comment |
Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism
@QiaochuYuan: You're right, I forgot that there were primes other than 2. (Or rather, I was looking at the picture for just the 2-part.) |
Mar 31 |
comment |
Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism
A closely related fact, which quickly implies this one, is that the 3-torus is cobordant to a disjoint union of four copies of the 3-sphere (with its unit quaternion framing). Since that's just 3-dimensional it might be easier to see. |
Mar 31 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Mar 31 |
asked | Nilpotence of the stable Hopf map via framed cobordism |
Mar 25 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Mar 15 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Feb 22 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Feb 17 |
comment |
How to proceed with a type-theoretic proof that $\Sigma \mathbb{S}^1 \simeq \mathbb{S}^2$?
I'm a bit confused about what your definition of $\Sigma S^1$ is. I would have expected it to be generated by one point, one 1-loop, and two 2-paths trivializing the 1-loop. But you seem to have two points. Could you clarify your notation a little? |
Feb 15 |
comment |
In a closed monoidal abelian category, are the compact projectives a monoidal subcategory?
If your tensor category is finite, then compact projective is the same as projective. In that setting, tensoing a projective by anything is projective, see Prop 2.1 of arxiv.org/abs/math/0301027 |
Feb 8 |
comment |
Has a subfactor with lattice $B_3$, a singly generated identity biprojection?
In the group/subgroup case what group theoretical statement does this correspond to? |
Jan 18 |
awarded | Good Question |
Jan 13 |
answered | Relationship between Hochschild cohomology and Drinfeld centers |
Jan 8 |
accepted | Is there a “simplification” functor in algebraic topology? |
Jan 8 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Jan 8 |
comment |
Is there a “simplification” functor in algebraic topology?
@QiaochuYuan: Ah, ok, I'd just assumed that $B(G/[G,G])$ was a simplification of BG, but I see what you're saying (the perfect space Y is just the Eilenberg-MacLane space corresponding to the nontrivial cohomology). Probably $B(A_5)$ is already a problem. |
Jan 8 |
revised |
Is there a “simplification” functor in algebraic topology?
Connected |
Jan 8 |
comment |
Is there a “simplification” functor in algebraic topology?
Yes, in the homotopy category. |
Jan 8 |
asked | Is there a “simplification” functor in algebraic topology? |
Dec 24 |
revised |
Why does a tetracategory with one object, one 1-morphism and one 2-morphism give a symmetric monoidal category
added 59 characters in body |