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
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 15:34 | vote | accept | Mikhail Bondarko | ||
| Sep 13, 2015 at 23:02 | comment | added | Peter May | If you are in spectra, then H_i(X) already has a fixed meaning for all integers i, and so does H^i(X), and they are not the same. So your notation introduces unwanted ambiguity. In Boardman's language, coambiguous notation (two notations for the same thing) is fine, but ambiguous notation is not. | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 19:00 | comment | added | Mikhail Bondarko | My problem is that both (motivic) complexes and (topological) spectra yield examples of my general formalism for triangulated categories (and I am not a topologist). In order to make all my papers compatible I would prefect to denote the $i$-th $H\mathbb{Z}$-homology of spectra by $H_{-i}^{something}$. So, what could I write for "something" to explain my convention? | |
| Sep 13, 2015 at 18:42 | history | answered | Peter May | CC BY-SA 3.0 |