Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 15, 2012 at 12:04 answer added Leo Alonso timeline score: 3
Nov 14, 2012 at 18:13 comment added Richard Jennings @Leo Alonso. That's exactly what I was wondering! They define the resolution of a complex as a cone, how can a cone be a bicomplex? What do they have to do with each other? I just don't know how to reinterpret that. So the resolution of a complex is a cone? Not another complex?
Nov 14, 2012 at 9:48 comment added Leo Alonso Notice that "holim" in the sense of Bokstedt and Neeman's paper is not the usual Bousfield-Kan notion, but a non-functorial version based on the Milnor triangle, see Definition 2.1 on p. 213 of the paper. So it is not a bicomplex, it just a cone.
Nov 14, 2012 at 6:43 answer added David C timeline score: 4
Nov 14, 2012 at 6:18 comment added Mikhail Bondarko Why do you think that resolutions are related with homotopy colimits? Also, could you fix the formula?
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:59 history edited Richard Jennings CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 1 characters in body; deleted 13 characters in body; deleted 5 characters in body
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:53 history edited Richard Jennings CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 3 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body; added 7 characters in body
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:44 history edited Richard Jennings CC BY-SA 3.0
added 24 characters in body
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:38 comment added Sasha A resolution of complex $X$ is just a quasiisomorphism of $X$ with some other complex. The question is what properties you want to impose on this other complex. Usually people consider h-projective or h-injective resolutions and the statement is that you can construct one (sometimes).
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:34 history edited Sasha CC BY-SA 3.0
added 2 characters in body
Nov 14, 2012 at 5:29 history asked Richard Jennings CC BY-SA 3.0