Timeline for Why do we need a $G$-universe?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2013 at 9:33 | vote | accept | H. Shindoh | ||
| Oct 14, 2013 at 13:49 | answer | added | Peter May | timeline score: 14 | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 13:03 | answer | added | Tyler Lawson | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 10:35 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 10:27 | comment | added | André Henriques | This is not really an answer: it's just a comment relating to the first parentheses in the last paragraph. Equivalence classes of [insert anything you want here] do NOT form a category. Indeed: you can't define morphisms between equivalence classes (and even if you think that you can define morphisms, then you can't compose them). | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 8:47 | comment | added | H. Shindoh | I asked my question on SE, but I deleted it, because MO seems to be more suitable for the question. | |
| Oct 14, 2013 at 8:45 | history | asked | H. Shindoh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |