Timeline for Mayer-Vietoris Sequence for Arbitrary Bicartesian Square of Spectra
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2013 at 19:28 | vote | accept | Jonathan Beardsley | ||
| Mar 1, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | Yes. We think of homology of pairs, and sometimes we replace pairs by good pairs (where the inclusion is a cofibration), but we still define homology for all pairs (and a map of pairs that's a weak equivalence of both big spaces and subspaces induces an iso); so why not just define relative homology for all maps instead of just for inclusion maps? Sometimes "inclusion" doesn't make sense in abstract setting, and even if it does our habit is to define relative homology for all pairs not just nice ones, so why not for all maps rather than just cofibrations? | |
| Mar 1, 2013 at 15:48 | comment | added | Dylan Wilson | Just to be fair, the OP was asking about homotopy push-pulls of spectra, so I didn't think it was too superfluous to work in that realm... Also does h(A --->X) mean something like the homology of the pair after replacing the map with a cofibration? (just making sure I understand) | |
| Mar 1, 2013 at 14:07 | history | answered | Tom Goodwillie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |