Timeline for What tools cannot work for orbifolds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 15, 2013 at 18:48 | vote | accept | Chris Gerig | ||
Jul 12, 2013 at 22:13 | comment | added | Al-Amrani | There is an example of explicit computations for a particular orbifold. A "divisive" weighted projective space $P(q_0,...,q_n)$ is s.t. the weight $q_i$ divides $q_i+1$ for each i. Its equivariant K-theory and cobordism ring have been recently computed by Harada, Holm, Ray and Williams (arxiv.org/abs/1306.1641). | |
Jul 12, 2013 at 14:32 | vote | accept | Chris Gerig | ||
Jul 12, 2013 at 14:32 | |||||
Jul 10, 2013 at 19:59 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 13 | |
Jul 10, 2013 at 19:19 | history | edited | Chris Gerig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 261 characters in body
|
Jul 10, 2013 at 18:47 | answer | added | Johannes Ebert | timeline score: 11 | |
Jul 10, 2013 at 15:22 | comment | added | Misha | I am not sure if this qualifies as a "construction" but the cobordism theory for orbifolds is far less developed than the one for manifolds. I might be behind the events, but, I do not think orbifold cobordism rings were completely computed (Andres Angel did some calculations). Same for surgery theory, I think. | |
Jul 10, 2013 at 8:54 | answer | added | Daniel Moskovich | timeline score: 13 | |
Jul 9, 2013 at 17:41 | comment | added | Ian Agol | One basic remark is that there are (non-manifold) orbifolds which have trivial fundamental group, so are not developable (called "bad orbifolds") (in 2 dimensions, these are the teardrop and football orbifolds with distinct orders of the 2 cone points; it is a deep theorem that a compact 3-orbifold is good if and only if there are no bad 2-suborbifolds). So although the fundamental group is defined, it is not quite as useful as for manifolds (although the theory of good orbifolds are a good analogue). | |
Jul 9, 2013 at 17:25 | history | asked | Chris Gerig | CC BY-SA 3.0 |