Timeline for Relative cohomology in algebraic topology vs algebraic geometry
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2018 at 5:53 | comment | added | Armando j18eos | OT: also "regular", "normal" are terms abused in maths... | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 14:44 | comment | added | Sean Tilson | One thing is that points have interesting automorphism groups in algebraic geometry but not in topology, this might explain the initial vs terminal issue. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 11:54 | comment | added | Donu Arapura | I agree with jmc. The map from language to mathematics is many to one, so I wouldn't read too much into different uses of the same word. In any case, algebraic geometers think cohomology with support and topologists think about fibrations, and these correspond to "relative" on the other side. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 11:29 | comment | added | Asvin | What is the definition of a cohomology of a pair in algebraic geometry? Very preliminary searching turns up this link to another question: mathoverflow.net/questions/168551/… but without any answer. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 11:09 | comment | added | jmc | I think in both fields people are interested in both versions. In algebraic geometry people also consider cohomology of pairs, and in algebraic topology fibrations $X \to A$ play an important role. The two versions of "relative" that you describe are not equivalent; that is just an unfortunate coincidence in terminology. | |
| Jul 2, 2018 at 10:30 | history | asked | Asvin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |