Timeline for What is the opposite category of the category of modules (or Hopf algebra representations)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
Sep 25, 2010 at 21:38 | answer | added | Peter Arndt | timeline score: 9 | |
Jun 29, 2010 at 8:09 | answer | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | timeline score: 6 | |
Jun 29, 2010 at 6:58 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | @Boyarsky: Yes, Tannaka works much more generally. See the paper by Joyal and Street (they have many together: look for ones with "Tannaka" in the title). | |
Jun 26, 2010 at 4:02 | answer | added | Ryan Reich | timeline score: 6 | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 13:04 | history | edited | Akhil Mathew | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 35 characters in body
|
Jun 25, 2010 at 13:03 | comment | added | Akhil Mathew | Well, I had restricted myself to the finite-dimensional hom-space case. I wasn't really clear about it in the question, so I'll add it. | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 2:15 | comment | added | Boyarsky | Hopf algebra axioms are only dualizable (in the finite-dimesional case) when the group object is commutative, unless one wants to give up commutativity on both sides (and then it doesn't correspond to a finite group scheme, so is Tannaka nonsense applicable?) | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 0:53 | comment | added | Akhil Mathew | That sounds reasonable (I had forgotten that Hopf algebras had dualizable axioms) but I'll have to convince myself. | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 0:36 | vote | accept | Akhil Mathew | ||
Jun 25, 2010 at 0:35 | answer | added | Greg Stevenson | timeline score: 25 | |
Jun 25, 2010 at 0:23 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | The obvious guess for the second question is the dual, at least when H is finite-dimensional. Have you checked this e.g. for H = C[G], G a finite group? | |
Jun 24, 2010 at 23:48 | history | asked | Akhil Mathew | CC BY-SA 2.5 |