Timeline for Why are local systems and representations of the fundamental group equivalent
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2022 at 10:11 | answer | added | Matematiflo | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 7, 2016 at 8:34 | history | edited | bavajee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 718 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2010 at 20:20 | answer | added | user1504 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 13:43 | answer | added | Magnus | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 14:17 | answer | added | Frank | timeline score: 25 | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 3:55 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Judging from the comments it seems to me that the only reason why this doesn't appear to be well covered in the literature is that you're looking in the wrong places (or insisting on keywords that aren't used in most intro algtop books). In books like Hatcher's, they use the word "bundle", not "locally constant sheaf". Instead of "local system" words like "bundle of groups" are used. Moreover it looks like you prefer not to think about bundles of groups, but the induced vector bundles from the construction Arapura describes below. | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 3:14 | answer | added | Omar Antolín-Camarena | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 1:41 | answer | added | Donu Arapura | timeline score: 42 | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 0:46 | answer | added | Paul | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 0:43 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | This is the standard relationship between covering spaces and the fundamental group covered in most basic algebraic topology textbooks, no? | |
| Mar 11, 2010 at 0:41 | history | asked | bavajee | CC BY-SA 2.5 |