bio | website | math.northwestern.edu/… |
---|---|---|
location | Seattle, WA | |
age | 22 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 10 months |
seen | 5 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 4,662 |
Graduate student at Northwestern.
Feel free to email me at
dwilson [at] u. northwestern. edu
:)
Mar 15 |
comment |
Brandt's definition of groupoids (1926)
is one of your "groupoids" supposed to say "categories"? |
Mar 10 |
comment |
How to prove that any perfect complex on an affine scheme is strictly perfect?
(and the reference for my entire comment, almost verbatim, is Thomason's classification of triangulated subcategories paper) |
Mar 10 |
comment |
How to prove that any perfect complex on an affine scheme is strictly perfect?
Here's something that is true: On any scheme with an ample family of line bundles (e.g. quasi-projective, or affine, or separated regular Noetherian) every perfect complex is quasi-isomorphic to a strictly perfect complex. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "is" in your claim, but the reference is SGA6 II.2.2.8 or Thomason-Trobaugh 2.3.1. |
Mar 7 |
comment |
Lemma 2.1.1.4 in Lurie's HTT
For the first question: I believe the exact thing I need is the aforementioned corollary or 2.1.2.10, I can try to rewrite this more clearly later. |
Mar 7 |
comment |
Lemma 2.1.1.4 in Lurie's HTT
For your second question: Applying the last argument for $Y = K$ and $Y = X_s$ shows that in both cases the homotopy class of a lift is determined by $f$, i.e. there is only one homotopy class of lift for $K \times \Delta^1 \rightarrow S$ so it must be the one obtained by composiiton. |
Mar 7 |
comment |
Lemma 2.1.1.4 in Lurie's HTT
(Alternatively I can quote Corollary 2.1.2.9 of HTT if you don't like that argument at the end.) |
Mar 7 |
answered | Lemma 2.1.1.4 in Lurie's HTT |
Feb 10 |
comment |
Anything between vector bundles and sphere bundles?
I thing taking connective covers moves the wrong way. For example, we have a map $BO \rightarrow BhAut(S)$. What you're trying to do (stably) is factor this map through other things. A connective cover, say $SO$, gives a map $BSO \rightarrow BO$ which is not what you want. |
Feb 9 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Feb 8 |
awarded | Nice Question |
Feb 8 |
accepted | Mazur secret Bourbaki report “Analyse p-adique” |
Feb 8 |
comment |
Mazur secret Bourbaki report “Analyse p-adique”
This is awesome! Thanks for your heroic dedication to the spread of knowledge! Hope the physicists didn't burn down your office though... |
Feb 8 |
awarded | Inquisitive |
Feb 7 |
comment |
Mazur secret Bourbaki report “Analyse p-adique”
Apparently it's been too long since I've asked a question and I've forgotten where to find the "Community Wiki" option... Help? |
Feb 7 |
asked | Mazur secret Bourbaki report “Analyse p-adique” |
Jan 20 |
comment |
What is modular representation theory for groups good for?
Quillen used some of this stuff, and needed various facts about $H^*(GL_n(\mathbb{F}_p), \mathbb{Z}/p)$ to prove the Adams conjecture and compute the algebraic K theory of finite fields. |
Dec 17 |
awarded | Good Question |
Dec 11 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Dec 11 |
revised |
Obstructions for $E_n$-algebras
added 74 characters in body |
Dec 11 |
comment |
Obstructions for $E_n$-algebras
@SeanTilson You're absolutely right, of course, they start with a commutative comodule. The Dyer-Lashof operations then appear in computing the obstructions- in fact, all of the computations take place in the category of algebras in simplicial comodules over a certain simplicial operad. I'll amend the answer accordingly. |