Timeline for quasi-isomorphism
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2010 at 8:50 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 6, 2010 at 5:08 | comment | added | algori | Guys -- let's remove this impersonator nonsense before more people see it. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 20:48 | comment | added | algori | Kevin -- this is certainly true if one considers Sullivan's piecewise polynomial cochains. For singular cochains the "only if" part is obviously true, but the "if" part is subtle (presumably also true, but the details seem to have never appeared in literature). See mathoverflow.net/questions/9146/… | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 20:33 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I seem to recall hearing or reading something like: If we restrict to, say, simply connected CW complexes, then X and Y are rationally weak homotopy equivalent (meaning there's a map inducing isomorphisms on homotopy groups tensor Q) if and only if C^*(X;Q) and C^*(Y;Q) are quasi-isomorphic dg algebras. Is this true? Maybe something like this is what Jim is asking about. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 19:12 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | Andrea- I do have to say that I think it's rather rude to accuse people of being Jim Stasheff impersonators without any evidence. I agree that it would be extraordinarily out of line to post as a well-known mathematician, but since I don't think we've had any serious cases of that, I'd give any poster use what appears to be a IRL name the benefit of the doubt. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 18:04 | comment | added | algori | jim -- to rephrase your question: you give the definitions of two things and ask if the difference in ONLY that one definition defines one thing and the other definition defines the other thing. | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 17:50 | history | asked | Jim Stasheff | CC BY-SA 2.5 |