Timeline for Algebraic topology beyond the basics: any texts bridging the gap?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2022 at 9:51 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed capitals from title
|
| Jan 28, 2020 at 23:39 | history | edited | Nubok | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added space after colon
|
| Jul 20, 2016 at 14:45 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | "formal niceties like grammar and punctuation have never been a major concern of mine" -- perhaps you've begun to address this in recent years, but if not, then you should. A whole bunch of mistakes in spelling, grammar, and orthography just makes the writer look sloppy and unprofessional. Especially for someone who writes so volubly and copiously as you (The Mathemagician), I'd think that getting such matters right should be a concern. | |
| Jul 20, 2016 at 14:36 | history | edited | Todd Trimble | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a raft of errors, mostly spelling, orthography, and the usual its/it's confusion
|
| Jul 20, 2016 at 13:57 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jul 25, 2015 at 12:46 | history | edited | Shay Ben Moshe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Sep 9, 2013 at 6:25 | answer | added | Jrnm | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 9, 2013 at 14:24 | answer | added | Mikhail Khovanov | timeline score: 25 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 11:45 | answer | added | Lennart Meier | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 27, 2011 at 2:30 | history | edited | Peter May | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected grammar on line 4: are for is
|
| Dec 27, 2011 at 1:24 | history | edited | Spiro Karigiannis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added spaces after commas to improve readability
|
| Dec 26, 2011 at 23:39 | answer | added | Peter May | timeline score: 51 | |
| Dec 26, 2011 at 22:09 | history | edited | user9072 |
added tag
|
|
| Dec 26, 2011 at 20:26 | answer | added | Alexander Markos | timeline score: 29 | |
| Mar 17, 2010 at 2:21 | vote | accept | The Mathemagician | ||
| Mar 14, 2010 at 13:13 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I used to think that people did pointless things on purpose just to annoy me. Now I know that they do. =p | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 11:33 | comment | added | Regenbogen | So Warner's book is a modern Spanier? | |
| Mar 14, 2010 at 1:54 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by The Mathemagician | ||
| Mar 13, 2010 at 22:22 | answer | added | K.J. Moi | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 21:12 | answer | added | Tim Perutz | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 20:04 | answer | added | Ilya Grigoriev | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 17:37 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | Warner's "book" isn't really a book per se but a massive set of lecture notes.Still,it shouldn't be that difficult to publish in it's current state-it really just needs a good proofreading and index. And to answer your final question-well,are we talking about a standard first year text or the follow up text I'm suggesting?There's PLENTY of good ones in the former category.I'm talking about the latter.But while we're on the subject-a first year text that goes up to spectral sequences,the De Rham theorum, Poincare duality and model categories would help the situation tremendously. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 17:37 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | Ravenel's book is certainly a textbook,but it's VERY specialized. There is no shortage of specialized texts at the advanced level: "Rational homotopy Theory" By Yves Félix, Stephen Halperin, Jean-Claude Thomas is one of the best textbooks there is on any subject at that level. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 17:37 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | Second-yes,I did get on my soapbox and for that I apologize. I thought this issue needed to be raised among talented mathematicians and students and although this wasn't the most appropriate forum for it,this IS the best place online to reach that intended audience. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 17:36 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | First off, thanks for the proofreading and typesetting, Charles - formal niceties like grammar and punctuation have never been a major concern of mine. A sad bad habit I developed when a biochemistry student in a very good program that felt the same way. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 17:05 | answer | added | Charles Rezk | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 16:37 | comment | added | Charles Rezk | I've inserted some paragraph breaks just so that I could read your question - but really, it's a rant, not a question. If I pretend you are asking a question, I think it must be: "What are good modern textbooks on algebraic topology/homotopy theory? If such a thing doesn't exist, what should a good modern textbook contain?" | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 16:33 | history | edited | Charles Rezk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Improved formatting
|
| Mar 13, 2010 at 16:26 | answer | added | Andy Putman | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 12:01 | comment | added | user2146 | Warners book looks like a nice account, but somehow I have problems with getting used to the typesetting and, like Peter, I wonder how one can provide a thousand pages book with neither a table of contents nor an index. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 11:08 | comment | added | Peter Arndt | How could Warner write such a book and not provide a table of contents?! | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 8:09 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | I second Yemon's first comment - this is quite a wall of text. Also, does Ravenel's green book (available online) fall into the "monograph" bin? Selick has a relatively recent survey book on homotopy theory, but you might not like how it's part of the Fields Institute Monograph series. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 8:01 | answer | added | user19475 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 7:45 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | 'We need a book that surveys the subject as it currently stands and prepares advanced students for the research literature and specialized monographs as well as makes the subject accessible to the nonexpert mathematicain who wants to learn the state of the art but not drown in it." Does it not strike you that this is an incredibly ambitious goal to aspire to? | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 7:42 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | There appears to be a small ratio of question to soapbox. While I think I admire your zeal, it might be wise to take more pauses for breath, or indeed for new paragraphs. | |
| Mar 13, 2010 at 7:31 | history | asked | The Mathemagician | CC BY-SA 2.5 |