Timeline for What is the history of the notion of subdivision of categories?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jul 31, 2012 at 8:43 | history | edited | Jonathan Chiche |
Added one tag.
|
|
| Jul 31, 2012 at 2:09 | comment | added | Jonathan Chiche | Thanks, Mike. I was not aware of that, yet I was planning to study that work anyway! | |
| Jul 30, 2012 at 2:23 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | This is not exactly an answer to your last question, but you may be interested in the work of Barwick and Kan on "relative categories" and "$n$-relative categories" -- I think they use a notion of "relative subdivision". | |
| Jul 29, 2012 at 3:29 | comment | added | Jonathan Chiche | Many thanks to Peter May for blowing such an interesting horn. I am eagerly waiting for this book to appear. I have been wondering for a while why neither Dwyer-Kan nor Thomason mention the fact that the subdivision is merely that composite. I would accept this comment as an answer if I could. (P.S. I had to look for the meaning of "REU". It means "Research Experience for Undergraduates".) | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 17:45 | comment | added | Peter May | Sorry to blow my own horn, but I am teaching things related to this in the REU I run at University of Chicago, and I'm writing a book that will include an exposition of subdivisions of categories and some neat combinatorial relationships (due to students, not me) between that and other notions, certainly including the factorization you mention (which is probably the best definition of the subdivision of a category). Note that as a composite of left and right adjoints, this is not a categorically well-behaved construction. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 8:01 | history | asked | Jonathan Chiche | CC BY-SA 3.0 |