Timeline for Pro-algebraic versus continuous Galois cohomology, and schematic homotopy types
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2013 at 15:38 | vote | accept | ChrisLazda | ||
| Nov 8, 2013 at 15:38 | answer | added | ChrisLazda | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 8:34 | history | edited | ChrisLazda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 263 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 8:30 | comment | added | ChrisLazda | No, I don't think so. By cohomology, I really mean $Hom_{D}(1,V[i])$, where $D$ is either of the triangulated categories, so $t$-structures don't come into it at all. I'll edit the question to make this clearer. | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 0:03 | comment | added | John Salvatierrez | general triangulated category comment: could it be that you're taking cohomology with respect to two different t-structures? (so that the equivalence holds, but without taking one standard heart in the other) | |
| Nov 6, 2013 at 21:33 | history | edited | ChrisLazda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2013 at 18:27 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Oh, I see. My apologies. It seems the schematic homotopy type is not the profinite homotopy type (I thought they were two names for the same thing). | |
| Nov 6, 2013 at 17:22 | comment | added | ChrisLazda | Sorry, which particular section of the thesis did you have in mind? It seems to be talking about pro-finite homotopy types to me... | |
| Nov 5, 2013 at 21:16 | history | edited | Allen Knutson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed spelling error in title
|
| Nov 5, 2013 at 20:09 | history | asked | ChrisLazda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |