Timeline for remark in milne's class field theory notes
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 29, 2010 at 1:26 | vote | accept | Rado | ||
| Jan 29, 2010 at 1:26 | comment | added | Rado | Thanks, for some reason I thought that there always was an explicit isomorphism (something along the frobenius map), but it was not clear (or proven) whether it is canonical. Although, it still seems the "functoriality" you mention above is (at least partially) captured by the nat.transformation definition if the functors are defined properly. In any case, I will try to digest CFT better first and then go back to the foundational questions. | |
| Jan 28, 2010 at 11:37 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | Sure, but the "particular property" in Pete's answer goes into the definition of the comma category. | |
| Jan 28, 2010 at 10:19 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2010 at 10:15 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | The unique isomorphisms from the initial and terminal object are actually unique, and all of the universality properties can be expressed by choosing appropriate initial and terminal objects in the various comma categories (not restricted to slice categories). | |
| Jan 28, 2010 at 10:00 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2010 at 8:48 | history | answered | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |