Timeline for Derived algebraic geometry: how to reach research level math?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2019 at 16:21 | answer | added | John Rached | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 24, 2019 at 20:14 | comment | added | David White | A published reference for Friedman's paper is projecteuclid.org/euclid.rmjm/1335187157 | |
| Oct 3, 2015 at 1:07 | vote | accept | 010110111 | ||
| Sep 26, 2015 at 23:24 | answer | added | AAK | timeline score: 83 | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 23:42 | comment | added | user40276 | I would suggest these lecture notes of Töen math.berkeley.edu/~aaron/gaelxx/DAG.pdf . However you need to get used with simplicial stuff before. These notes just treat the dg approach. There are other approaches: via simplicial rings, $E_{\infty}$ dg rings, commutative dg rings, $E_{\infty}$ $H\mathbb{Z}$ algebras and commutative $H\mathbb{Z}$ algebras. Some of these approaches are equivalent and to decide which approach you will use depends on what you want to do with derived alg. geom. So I would suggest studying some alg. geom. and moduli before trying anything more fancy. | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 21:02 | answer | added | Yonatan Harpaz | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | 010110111 | My university doesn't have any algebraic topologists. And Mark, thanks for the article. I've read through that before. | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 7:35 | comment | added | Mark Grant | I recommend that before diving into Goerss and Jardine you read the survey article by Greg Friedman to get an intuition for simplicial sets: arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.4221v3.pdf | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 5:37 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | Do you have any specialists around to guide you? | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 3:05 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Goerss and Jardine is a hard book: they leave proofs to the reader that aren't obvious. Try Kamps and Porter's "Abstract Homotopy and Simple Homotopy Theory", which is more classical, but still very abstract. For a free resource, try ncatlab.org/nlab/files/Abstract-Homotopy.pdf | |
| Sep 9, 2015 at 1:16 | history | edited | user62675 |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 9, 2015 at 0:55 | history | edited | user62675 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2015 at 0:20 | history | edited | 010110111 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added info about background
|
| Sep 9, 2015 at 0:05 | history | edited | Boris Bukh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I changed title to better match the content of the question
|
| Sep 9, 2015 at 0:02 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | I am not a topologist, but you might want to invest in learning more classical homotopy theory first if you have not already. Then you could look at this mathoverflow.net/questions/132139/…. Following that, if you have a book without exercises, you need to make your own, and ideally you should be talking with other people about the content. Maybe organize a working group? | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 23:59 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | I think this is a fine subject to try and learn. I would question, however, why you have picked this subject if you do not have the requisite background. I would think that you would try to learn this stuff once it is clearly useful and interesting. But if you only know "a few buzzwords", I do not see how it could be interesting. In other words, if you are mostly attracted to this because it seems fancy, you may not have a good time learning it. I would suggest, rather, naturally evolving from the things you already know well and find interesting. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 23:40 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | A general tip is to read a lot of articles. At first, there are many things that are unclear, but it is similar to being immersed in a language. Eventually, pieces falls into places. | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 22:56 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Sep 8, 2015 at 21:38 | history | asked | 010110111 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |