Skip to main content

Timeline for Lipschitz homotopy groups

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 25, 2019 at 23:23 history edited Piotr Hajlasz CC BY-SA 4.0
added 711 characters in body
Mar 14, 2018 at 23:07 comment added YCor Actually I remember discussing this notion with Wenger (and others), and this was at the time of the previous article arxiv.org/abs/1004.2907 (in the IHP semester in January-March 2011). Basically it became transparent that his result was related to the fact that the asymptotic cone of the group in consideration has a nontrivial Lipschitz $\pi_1$.
Mar 14, 2018 at 22:45 comment added Piotr Hajlasz The paper Lipschitz homotopy groups of the Heisenberg groups by Wenger and Young was written after ours, but published before ours. In fact, in the paper they answered some of the questions from our paper.
Mar 14, 2018 at 22:35 comment added YCor Why do you say you haven't seen anything? In your paper you're quoting papers involving "lipschitz homotopy groups" (by Wenger-Young).
Mar 14, 2018 at 20:32 comment added mme Ah, I see. Thank you for the point of clarification!
Mar 14, 2018 at 20:04 comment added Piotr Hajlasz @Mike Miller In the case of smooth manifolds there is no difference between classical and Lipschitz homotopy groups. The difference is when we work with metric spaces. For example in the case of the Heisenberg groups the classical homotopy groups are trivial, because the space is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space, but some of the Lipschitz homotopy groups are not trivial.
Mar 14, 2018 at 19:48 comment added mme The existence of smooth approximation (and relative smooth approximation) results, particularly those defined by convolution, lead me to expect that these agree with the standard homotopy groups. Intuitively they "fit between" smooth and continuous homotopy, which coincide.
Mar 14, 2018 at 18:38 history asked Piotr Hajlasz CC BY-SA 3.0