Timeline for Is it meaningful to work on convergencies, integration, etc. on the Zariski topology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2014 at 0:54 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @oxeimon 'sheaf theory on real manifolds are trivial' - depends what sort of sheaves you are interested in. Sheaves of continuous or smooth real-valued functions, alright. Analytic functions, or perhaps more 'interesting' sheaves valued in other things (e.g. germs of functions to Lie groups), not so trivial. | |
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:25 | vote | accept | Haullab | ||
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:22 | vote | accept | Haullab | ||
| Apr 20, 2014 at 7:25 | |||||
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:25 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | I've added an explanation in the answer. | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:19 | history | edited | Denis Nardin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected typo
|
| Apr 19, 2014 at 20:09 | comment | added | Will Chen | I've seen many people refer to partitions of unity as a way of doing exactly what you describe, but I've never seen a "partitions of unity argument", as such. Can you outline an example of such an argument showing that sheaf theory on, say, real manifolds are trivial? | |
| Apr 19, 2014 at 19:39 | history | answered | Denis Nardin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |