Timeline for Chain maps of complex
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2010 at 9:13 | comment | added | Amadeus | Thanks. I think my problem is the way I visualize the quantification: I think of two random arrows q and p (not necessarily composable), and the statement "q is a kernel of p" is like a binary predicate on the arrows of the category. So my above example goes through if I interpret "q is a kernel of p iff each q(n) is a kernel of p(n)" in my way | |
| Aug 27, 2010 at 6:57 | answer | added | babubba | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 27, 2010 at 6:35 | comment | added | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | Your book might be somewhat terse on this, but I would expect the assumption for domain and codomain to agree to be fundamental. Possible fundamental to the point where the book doesn't bother stating it explicitly. Specifically, a function - and thus more so a chain map - carries its domain and codomain in its definition, and all of it has to match where functions meet, so it's not actually enough for q(n) to be a kernel of p(n): you need the modules you use to fit into the right chain complex as well. | |
| Aug 27, 2010 at 6:31 | history | edited | Yemon Choi |
tweaked the tag
|
|
| Aug 27, 2010 at 6:08 | history | asked | Amadeus | CC BY-SA 2.5 |