Timeline for For a cross section $\sigma\colon G/N\to G$, how is $\sigma(y)^{-1}\sigma(x)^{-1}\sigma(xy)$ called?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar 5, 2015 at 9:18 | vote | accept | Hannes Thiel | ||
Mar 3, 2015 at 19:54 | answer | added | Dave Witte Morris | timeline score: 6 | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 10:18 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Your second sentence is correct. The issue with "the cocycle" is that there seem to be more than one sort of cohomology lying around, one for each definition of cocycle. | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 10:17 | comment | added | Hannes Thiel | Ah I see. Thanks. But then what is "the cocycle" associated to the cross section? Maybe there are two. One measuring if the extension is split, and one measuring if the section is multiplicative. | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 10:10 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | I disagree, the usual notion of 2-cocycle in $H^2(G/N,N)$ is a function $G/N\times G/N \to N$, measuring exactly how $N\to G \to G/N$ fails to be a trivial extension. This is different to measuring if the extension is a split extension or not. | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 10:08 | comment | added | Hannes Thiel | Really? The usual cocycle for the section $\sigma$ is the map $\omega\colon G\times G/N\to N$, defined by the formula $\sigma(gy)\omega(g,y)=g\sigma(y)$. If $\sigma$ is multiplicative (which means that $G$ is a semidirect product), then $\alpha$ is trivial, but the cocycle $\omega$ need not be. How can this be? | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 10:01 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | It is exactly a cocycle, in nonabelian cohomology of groups. | |
Mar 3, 2015 at 8:55 | history | asked | Hannes Thiel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |