Timeline for Is the "inverse" (i.e., the "cohomological") numeration for singular (i.e., $H\mathbb{Z}$-)homology of spectra "acceptable"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2015 at 18:21 | comment | added | Mikhail Bondarko | I cannot change the published version; I can only correct the arxiv version. So, I have to choose between reversing the numbering (and then I will probably have to correct several other papers) and explaining my convention (this would require less effort; yet currenlty I have no idea how to justify it). | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 18:16 | comment | added | Ilias A. | After all, you can just start your article with a remark about the grading . | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 18:14 | comment | added | Ilias A. | If that was your question then I don't know, It seems to me that in topology the grading that I wrote is more convenient since you want that the stable homotopy groups of a space are only in positive degree. That is the justification. With your grading I don't know how to justify it. | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 18:00 | comment | added | Mikhail Bondarko | This is true; yet my question is: is it possible to "justify" or "correct" somehow the convention I have alreay used (for homology) in my paper? Did anybody else use a similar convention? | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 17:52 | history | answered | Ilias A. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |