Skip to main content
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