Timeline for Why aren't there more classifying spaces in number theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2022 at 21:01 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed, cf. https://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/5301/70594
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Sep 1, 2010 at 13:09 | comment | added | Peter Arndt | Related: Trees and more general buildings can give you the total spaces of the universal bundle for the group they were constructed from. In any case their homology is a G-module. And buildings are used in arithmetic, not directly for Galois groups though, as far as I know, you rather look e.g. at SL_n(L) and then get an action of Gal(L/k) on the result... | |
| Sep 1, 2010 at 12:23 | history | edited | Cam McLeman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 248 characters in body; added 137 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2010 at 12:19 | vote | accept | Cam McLeman | ||
| Aug 31, 2010 at 17:38 | answer | added | Josh | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 12:41 | answer | added | Richard Borcherds | timeline score: 24 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 12:29 | comment | added | Cam McLeman | @Agol: Well, perhaps not directly, but it sounds fascinating regardless, so +1. If there's an answer there to be elaborated on, I'd love to see it. This will save me from asking the new question "What was Agol talking about when he said..." :) | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 5:39 | answer | added | Dev Sinha | timeline score: 12 | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 4:36 | comment | added | David Corwin | You might be slightly interested in the answer by Josh Roberts in this thread: mathoverflow.net/questions/10879/intuition-for-group-cohomology | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 4:32 | comment | added | Ian Agol | My impression is that many automorphic forms describe cohomology classes on arithmetic manifolds or orbifolds, which are classifying spaces for their fundamental groups. Also, the class number of a quadratic imaginary number field is the number of cusps of the corresponding Bianchi orbifold, which could be turned into a cohomological statement. But I'm not sure this is related to your question. | |
| Aug 31, 2010 at 4:11 | history | asked | Cam McLeman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |