Timeline for Is there a good notion of morphism between orbifolds?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar 10, 2017 at 10:15 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
emphasized an important point
|
Mar 9, 2017 at 21:55 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a misnotation.
|
Mar 9, 2017 at 10:15 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
wording
|
Mar 9, 2017 at 8:48 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Give an example of the initial Satake difficulty to define smooth maps between orbifolds, and how it is solved in diffeology.
|
Dec 15, 2013 at 3:16 | comment | added | Patrick I-Z | @Claudio Thurston did not change the definition of V-manifolds but the name. People after him changed the definition. It is just what I asserted. | |
Dec 15, 2013 at 3:06 | comment | added | Patrick I-Z | I never have been a fan of the voting mechanism because I'm not in competition with anybody anymore, especially at my age (~60). But what I really dislike is down-voting without a bit of explanation... | |
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:41 | comment | added | Claudio Gorodski | According to Mike Davis (people.math.osu.edu/davis.12/papers/…), "Thurston's big improvement over Satake's earlier version was to show that the theory of covering spaces and fundamental groups worked for orbifolds", whereas "I few years before this was well known 'not to work' " | |
Dec 14, 2013 at 22:07 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
Dec 14, 2013 at 21:52 | history | edited | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
Dec 14, 2013 at 21:46 | history | answered | Patrick I-Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |