Timeline for Seeing modules as ring extensions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2017 at 6:19 | answer | added | Tim Porter | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 6:00 | comment | added | user44191 | @მამუკაჯიბლაძე I don't think it's quite a duplicate, although somewhat related. S Carnahan's answer seems to partially match my idea, if we restrict to $k$-categories; magmas would be acting in exactly the same way as not-necessarily-commutative algebras as above. | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 5:44 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | Closely related (possibly duplicate): Do non-associative objects have a natural notion of representation? | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 4:56 | comment | added | ಠ_ಠ | There's some explanation of Beck's definition on the nLab as well. | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 4:49 | history | edited | user44191 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2017 at 4:32 | history | edited | user44191 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Partial answer to question 1
|
| Apr 20, 2017 at 3:29 | comment | added | darij grinberg | This looks to me like how Beck defines $X$-modules for $X$ being an object in a category. See Jonathan Mock Beck, Triples, algebras and cohomology, Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, No. 2 (2003) pp 1-59, as cited in §2 of Lars Hesselholt, The big de Rham-Witt complex, arXiv:1006.3125v3. (Beware: I have only a passing familiarity with the latter and none at all with the former.) | |
| Apr 20, 2017 at 3:22 | history | asked | user44191 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |