Timeline for Does inclusion from n-stacks into (n+1)-stacks preserve the sheaf condition?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 1:44 | history | edited | Dmitri Pavlov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Apr 9, 2021 at 1:43 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | @DavidCorwin: I added a few more paragraphs based on the newly edited version of the question. | |
| Apr 9, 2021 at 1:37 | history | edited | Dmitri Pavlov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 842 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2021 at 20:30 | comment | added | David Corwin | I made a slight edit to clarify this. | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 21:04 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | @DavidCorwin: You asked “So what's the difference?”, and the answer is that the difference is that in one case Z is a presheaf of abelian groups and in the other case, Z is a presheaf of chain complexes, and the two categories have completely different notions of homotopy limits and ∞-sheaves. In your main post, you already pointed out that the inclusion of abelian groups into chain complexes does not preserve homotopy limits, which means that ∞-sheaves are not preserved. | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 20:50 | comment | added | David Corwin | I thought the original question is pretty clear. The question is what happens when we include from the category of abelian groups into the category of complexes. | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 19:43 | history | answered | Dmitri Pavlov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |