Skip to main content

Timeline for What is homology anyway?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 24, 2021 at 10:57 comment added Z. M Neither do I know about cosheaves, but my impression is that, sheaves look like "functions" on the space while cosheaves look like "objects themselves". I think that, for example, for a map $f\colon E\to X$, you could consider the functor for every open $U\subset X$ to the homotopy type (I don't know what version exactly, but maybe we could take the shape) of $f^{-1}(U)$ — this looks like a cosheaf and if $f$ is a "good" fibration, then this should be a local system that you mentioned.
Nov 24, 2021 at 4:55 comment added Mike Shulman @Z.M I suppose one could perhaps consider homology with coefficients in cosheaves. I don't know anything about cosheaves, so I don't know whether that would work. I do know that sheaves arise very naturally and I doubt cosheaves are as natural. A topos, for instance, is essentially defined to be a category of sheaves. And classical the classical "local coefficient systems" used for both homology and cohomology are (locally constant) sheaves.
Nov 23, 2021 at 22:25 comment added Z. M I wonder why you would consider the homology with coefficients in some sheaf instead of cosheaf? The later seems to be more natural coefficient system for homology?
Sep 11, 2017 at 18:13 comment added Mike Shulman @DavidCorfield I've added some more explanation.
Sep 11, 2017 at 18:13 history edited Mike Shulman CC BY-SA 3.0
add paragraph about locally-connected / proper duality
Sep 11, 2017 at 13:26 comment added David Corfield Could you say a little more about your final sentence, Mike? Looking at the pages -- ncatlab.org/nlab/show/locally+connected+geometric+morphism and ncatlab.org/nlab/show/proper+geometric+morphism -- a fundamental duality isn't terribly obvious to me.
Sep 11, 2017 at 11:51 history answered Mike Shulman CC BY-SA 3.0