Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 history edited Ricardo Andrade CC BY-SA 3.0
corrected mathjax problem involving quotes
May 20, 2010 at 4:24 comment added Sean Tilson I have to say that Boardman is a really quite a cool paper. So you should read it regardless of the below answer.
Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 vote accept user4676
Mar 18, 2010 at 13:44 answer added Allen Hatcher timeline score: 11
Mar 17, 2010 at 21:15 comment added user4676 Sure, sorry, fixed.
Mar 17, 2010 at 21:14 history edited user4676 CC BY-SA 2.5
edited body
Mar 17, 2010 at 21:02 comment added Sammy Black Each of your $j$ maps in the exact triangles appear to pointing the wrong way.
Mar 17, 2010 at 9:39 comment added user4676 Perhaps you are right but I don't see this. I don't see how the two convergence statements transform into each other (how "im" gets "ker" and how this goes well with the limit). This is exactly my question. Why is the $E_r^{p,q}$ from below for $r>>0$ the same as the $E_\infty^{p,q}$ in the "convergence theorem"?
Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 history edited user4676 CC BY-SA 2.5
deleted 26 characters in body
Mar 16, 2010 at 22:34 history edited Tyler Lawson CC BY-SA 2.5
fixed indexing
Mar 16, 2010 at 22:11 comment added Tilman I think you'll do yourself a big favor if you don't try to figure out all the indices for cohomological-type spectral sequences, but instead reindex your cohomological chain complexes $C^n$ as $C_{-n}$ and it'll become homological. The lemma you're quoting does not seem to depend on the non-negativity of the filtration, so the same proof will work. By the way, the authoritative reference for convergence questions of spectral sequences, imho, is Boardman, "Conditionally convergent spectral sequences".
Mar 16, 2010 at 21:38 history asked user4676 CC BY-SA 2.5