Timeline for Is there an analog of the Barratt-Eccles construction for group-like E_∞-spaces and E_∞-ring spaces?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2014 at 1:25 | history | edited | Peter May | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2014 at 15:32 | comment | added | Zhen Lin | @QiaochuYuan It seems to me that there is a lot of interest in enriched algebraic theories coming from the theoretical computer scientists. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 13:10 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | @QiaochuYuan: A lot of people thought about space-valued algebraic theories, see ncatlab.org/nlab/show(∞,1)-algebraic+theory. In particular, E_∞-spaces admit a particularly elegant description in terms of a (2,1)-algebraic theory, see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In fact, this particular formulation of the Barratt-Eccles construction was one of the motivations for my question, so I will now add it to the main post. | |
| Sep 3, 2014 at 6:40 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Properads and props still don't allow diagonal maps. You want a Lawvere theory. I don't know if anyone's thought about Lawvere theories valued in spaces. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 10:45 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | Indeed, it was stupid of me not to realize that the diagonal map cannot be expressed operadically! I edited the question to allow for generalizations of operads, e.g., properads, props, etc. | |
| Aug 31, 2014 at 10:28 | vote | accept | Dmitri Pavlov | ||
| Aug 31, 2014 at 10:31 | |||||
| Aug 30, 2014 at 19:09 | history | answered | Peter May | CC BY-SA 3.0 |