Timeline for Is there a good notion of morphism between orbifolds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec 19, 2013 at 9:51 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 2 | |
Dec 14, 2013 at 21:46 | answer | added | Patrick I-Z | timeline score: 9 | |
Dec 14, 2013 at 9:52 | vote | accept | Bruno Martelli | ||
Dec 13, 2013 at 17:36 | answer | added | Claudio Gorodski | timeline score: 10 | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 14:33 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 16 | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 13:11 | answer | added | Qfwfq | timeline score: 8 | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 12:34 | answer | added | Tim Porter | timeline score: 9 | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 12:24 | comment | added | Bruno Martelli | Yes, some kind of equivariant map locally defined on the manifold coverings would be a good idea... I hope someone has already done the tedious exercise :-) | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 12:03 | comment | added | HJRW | One comment. When dealing with graphs of groups (which are highly analogous to orbifolds), it's quite complicated to get the correct definition of morphism. On the other hand, it's easy if you pass to the universal cover, ie the Bass--Serre tree. The correct morphism then is just an equivariant map between trees. Of course, this doesn't help with bad orbifolds, but since all orbifolds are locally good, and the notion of morphism should be locally defined, it should be a very possible (though tedious) exercise to turn this into a precise definition. | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 12:02 | comment | added | Francois Ziegler | Hopefully @PatrickI-Z will comment -- I know that your problem was one of the motivations of this paper (arXiv), whose abstract starts: "We consider orbifolds as diffeological spaces. This gives rise to a natural notion of differentiable maps between orbifolds, making them into a subcategory of diffeology." | |
Dec 13, 2013 at 11:43 | history | asked | Bruno Martelli | CC BY-SA 3.0 |