Timeline for Counterexample for associativity of smash product
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 12, 2015 at 23:31 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 | answer | added | Eric Wofsey | timeline score: 12 | |
| Feb 10, 2015 at 0:37 | answer | added | Fernando Muro | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 16:06 | comment | added | johndoe | @FernandoMuro Apologies, I didn't read the May-Sigurdsson reference. I found Puppe's ref through tom Dieck's monograph. Did anybody look into that Bourbaki's reference anyway? | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 15:59 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | @johndoe in the reference mentioned in the question, the authors say that they intend to provide a published account of that claim by Puppe, since they don't know of any other one. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 15:43 | comment | added | johndoe | Puppe (p.336 in Math. Zeitschrift Vol. 69) claims without proof that they are not homeomorphic and refers to a similar example in Bourbaki Top. Gen. Ch.1 §9 Exer.11 (1951 edition). I could not track down this reference though. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 15:34 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | Nevertheless it looks like an interesting question, to ask whether they are abstractly homeomorphic. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 15:13 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | It seems to me that however the result was stated literally, what they probably meant (and probably what they ought to have said) is precisely what they proved, that the canonical map is not a homeomorphism. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 13:45 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |