Timeline for Equivalence of ordered and unordered cech cohomology.
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2018 at 17:42 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | On second thought, maybe not ... | |
| Oct 4, 2018 at 17:23 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | On the other hand, you could consider a variant of the ordered version where we don't require strict ordering: $\bigoplus_{i_1\leq \cdots \leq i_k} \Gamma(X_{i_1}\times_X \times\cdots \times_X X_{i_k}, F)$. It seems to me that this one should work very generally. | |
| Oct 4, 2018 at 17:21 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | @Qixiao No, it is not true for general topologies, including the etale topology. You can find covers $\{ X_1\to X\}$ with one element for which the two complexes have very different cohomology. E.g., the cover of the 1 point space with a single map $\{1,2\}\to \{0\}$. | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 23:58 | comment | added | user39380 | Is this true for etale topology? | |
| Feb 24, 2010 at 2:17 | history | edited | BCnrd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 5 characters in body; edited body; added 82 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2010 at 1:54 | vote | accept | David Zureick-Brown | ||
| Feb 24, 2010 at 1:54 | history | edited | David Zureick-Brown | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 77 characters in body
|
| Feb 23, 2010 at 23:47 | history | answered | BCnrd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |