Timeline for An "advanced beginner's" book on algebraic topology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 12, 2013 at 1:39 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | It's not clear to me how a textbook would benefit from bringing in these perspectives. If you have background in sheaves and derived categories, that would perhaps help you digest any of the standard textbooks a little quicker. But I'm not seeing how exposition of basic algebraic topology would be improved using these tools. | |
Jul 12, 2013 at 1:14 | history | edited | Igor Makhlin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
Jul 11, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | Piyush Grover | Bott and Tu comes to mind. | |
Jul 9, 2013 at 11:35 | answer | added | Mark Grant | timeline score: 6 | |
Jul 9, 2013 at 3:21 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by François G. Dorais | ||
Jul 9, 2013 at 2:28 | answer | added | john mangual | timeline score: 11 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 19:26 | answer | added | Justin Hilburn | timeline score: 6 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 18:09 | answer | added | user23860 | timeline score: 6 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 17:04 | answer | added | abz | timeline score: 9 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 16:59 | review | Close votes | |||
Jul 8, 2013 at 17:50 | |||||
Jul 8, 2013 at 16:44 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 17 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 14:23 | comment | added | jjms | I like the style of "May: A Concise Course in Algebraic Topology". Maybe also "Bredon: Sheaf theory"? | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 14:21 | comment | added | Deane Yang | I think you're getting good recommendations already. | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 14:11 | comment | added | Vidit Nanda | @vivekshende who on earth are you talking to? | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 14:04 | answer | added | Daniel Moskovich | timeline score: 8 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:59 | comment | added | Vivek Shende | I'll write you such a textbook here: ``there's an acyclic resolution of the constant sheaf that some people like; the i-th term in this complex is the sheaf which associates to an open set U the space of functions on the set of maps of an i simplex into U.'' | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:56 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | Spanier's? Switzer's? Is Hatcher's too basic for you? | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:50 | comment | added | Igor Makhlin | Deane, you're probably right, that would be the appropriate tone for the first couple of chapters. But doesn't the homological and categorical machinery still come in handy later on within an (extensive) first course? | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:43 | answer | added | Vidit Nanda | timeline score: 29 | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:38 | review | First posts | |||
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:38 | |||||
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:34 | comment | added | Deane Yang | My view is that it's better at the start to work as concretely as possible so you can see clearly (geometrically) how the algebraic objects really do describe interesting topological properties. At the beginning, the abstract machinery might obscure more than enlighten, even if you're comfortable with the machinery. | |
Jul 8, 2013 at 13:20 | history | asked | Igor Makhlin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |