Timeline for Generalising the parametric transversality theorem to a foliation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 20, 2019 at 23:25 | answer | added | Gael Meigniez | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Sep 1, 2015 at 14:54 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 1, 2015 at 14:54 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 30, 2015 at 2:04 | answer | added | Tom Goodwillie | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 30, 2015 at 0:26 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| S Aug 24, 2015 at 13:52 | history | bounty started | Benjamin | ||
| S Aug 24, 2015 at 13:52 | history | notice added | Benjamin | Draw attention | |
| Aug 24, 2015 at 12:01 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 34 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 18:21 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 21, 2015 at 18:20 | comment | added | Benjamin | Is having $F(s,p)=\psi_s(p)$ locally surjective (i.e. a submersion) sufficient? This is this my guess. | |
| Aug 21, 2015 at 17:56 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Aug 19, 2015 at 15:31 | comment | added | Benjamin | Ok, after a google-a-thon, it seems that it is now correct as stated and that this is the standard statement. The confusion was all mine. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 14:38 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 14:27 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 14:25 | comment | added | Benjamin | Hmm, I'm actually seeing conflicting statements around. I think @chris is correct, this is one way at least. It would be good to know the weakest requirements for the conclusion to hold. Thanks for spotting that. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 8:13 | comment | added | Chris Schommer-Pries | If I remember correctly the statement should have the assumption that the adjoint map $M \times S \to N$ is transverse to $R$, where $S$ is the manifold parametrizing the family. ... or something like this. I'll try to look it up later if the OP doesn't do it first. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 7:21 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Something seems incorrect in your statement of the theorem. Are you sure you have it right? I'm thinking of plenty of counter-examples. Take any family of smooth maps that are transverse for all but one parameter family, then you can use a bump function construction to replace it by a family that's not transverse in a neighbourhood of the original non-transverse point. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 6:03 | history | edited | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Aug 18, 2015 at 5:57 | history | asked | Benjamin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |