Timeline for Stiefel-Whitney Classes and Obstructions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2018 at 15:37 | comment | added | Michael Albanese | By the way, another name for $\mathfrak{o}_{2k + 1}$ is $W_{2k + 1}$ which is an integral Stiefel-Whitney class. | |
| Mar 5, 2017 at 18:59 | history | edited | Ben McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling
|
| Mar 5, 2017 at 13:39 | comment | added | Rene Schipperus | Look at $\mathbb{Z}_4$ let $c=2$ then $c\equiv 0 \mod 2\mathbb{Z}_4$ and $2c=0$ but $c\neq 0$. | |
| Mar 5, 2017 at 13:37 | comment | added | Rene Schipperus | @FrancoisZiegler Yeah, thats actually the book I am reading. He seems to think that the property $2\mathfrak{o}_{2k+1}=0$ implies the conclusion in my question. In fact on page 143 he says "$\mathfrak{o}_1=0$ and $w_1=0$ are equivalent because $2\mathfrak{o}_{1}=0$". Am I crazy but I just dont see this. | |
| Mar 5, 2017 at 13:29 | comment | added | Francois Ziegler | I believe this is answered affirmatively by Problem 100 (+ comments) of Prasolov (2007). | |
| Mar 5, 2017 at 13:07 | history | edited | Francois Ziegler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2017 at 12:38 | history | asked | Rene Schipperus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |