Timeline for Modelling rational spaces of finite $\mathbb{Q}$-type with spaces with finite simplices in every simplicial dimension
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 4, 2020 at 18:07 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 4, 2020 at 18:07 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jun 26, 2020 at 16:35 | history | bounty started | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | ||
| S Jun 26, 2020 at 16:35 | history | notice added | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | Draw attention | |
| Jun 26, 2020 at 16:35 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added bounty
|
| Jun 25, 2020 at 10:42 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2020 at 22:29 | comment | added | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | @GeoffroyHorel I never really stopped ;) We're hoping to have a really nice article out this summer with Bruno, those questions are related to one of the last results. I can explain what we do to you via skype one of these days if you want, just drop me an email :) Do you know who could have an idea about question 2? | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 18:57 | comment | added | Geoffroy Horel | Hi Daniel. Good to see you doing maths:) Yes I completely agree with what you wrote, I have no idea why Bousfield and Gugenheim got confused by this. | |
| Jun 24, 2020 at 9:38 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 97 characters in body
|
| Jun 24, 2020 at 7:36 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Made question (2) more precise
|
| Jun 23, 2020 at 21:43 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2020 at 7:23 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some thoughts
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 996 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 12:44 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor formatting
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 11:05 | comment | added | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | @GeoffroyHorel Salut Geoffroy :) Thanks a lot, this makes sense! We're using the fact that it is a contravariant adjunction, right? Feel free to post it as an answer. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 11:01 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected arrow direction
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 10:51 | comment | added | Geoffroy Horel | I think there is a problem with the direction of the arrow in Question 1. A fibrant replacement of $X$ would be $X\to Y$. Then yes, any way of producing functorially a Kan complex replacement will work. I'm sure that $A_{PL}$ preserves weak equivalences but in that case you don't even need that as the map $X\to Y$ will be a homotopy equivalence (cofibrant source, fibrant target) and $A_{PL}$ will preserve those. | |
| Jun 22, 2020 at 10:13 | history | edited | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 9:33 | history | asked | Daniel Robert-Nicoud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |