Timeline for Lazard's $\Gamma_n(f)$ as cocycle
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 23:26 | comment | added | user36938 | Have you tried looking at Hazewinkel's book "Formal groups and applications" to see if whatever you ultimately want may be proved there in a more complete form? | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | Jonathan Beardsley | @user36938 Hm okay, yeah, no I agree, I have some sort of strange terminology there. | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 9:23 | comment | added | user36938 | But you put the word "cochain" in a place that refers to $f$, not $\Gamma_n(f)$, so it is confusing. Do you understand why it works when $f$ is an $n$-bud? | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 4:31 | comment | added | Jonathan Beardsley | @user36938 I probably shouldn't say polynomial 3-cochain, I just meant that it's not yet clear that it's a cocycle, so it's a cochain. | |
| Jul 21, 2013 at 4:29 | comment | added | Jonathan Beardsley | Sorry, yes, I forgot to mention that as part of the hypothesis. I certainly have been using that. | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 23:30 | comment | added | user36938 | You have to use the hypothesis that $f$ is an $(n-1)$-bud (in Lazard's terminology); not sure what you mean by "polynomial 3-cochain", but if you don't use the $(n-1)$-bud hypothesis then you're trying to prove something false. | |
| Jul 20, 2013 at 22:57 | history | asked | Jonathan Beardsley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |