Timeline for Coboundary operators, 1-cocycles and computing cohomology
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2022 at 21:51 | vote | accept | Tireless and hardworking | ||
| Jan 18, 2022 at 19:57 | answer | added | F Zaldivar | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 18, 2022 at 17:12 | comment | added | Tireless and hardworking | @FZaldivar Is the following true? "If we change the resolution in a "good" way, then the resulting cohomology groups do not change" | |
| Jan 18, 2022 at 16:44 | comment | added | Tireless and hardworking | @FZaldivar Thanks for the "errata". I don't know these concepts: "resolution with homogeneous coordinates" and "resolution with non-homogeneous coordinates". | |
| Jan 17, 2022 at 22:53 | comment | added | F Zaldivar | Additionally, there is an "errata" for Neukirch's book at: mathi.uni-heidelberg.de/~schmidt/papers/errata-cft.pdf . If your interests are on class-field theory, I would stick with Neukirch's. | |
| Jan 17, 2022 at 21:42 | comment | added | F Zaldivar | The formula in Neukirch is correct; probably your confusion starts when one switches from a resolution with homogeneous coordinates to one with non-homogeneous coordinates because of the $G$-equivariance. Please note that in M. Hall notation I would use $G=\Omega$ and write $C^n(G, A)$ for $A$ a (left) $G$-module. | |
| Jan 17, 2022 at 20:54 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
abridged lengthy title to essential part and move other to question; formatting
|
| Jan 17, 2022 at 20:41 | history | asked | Tireless and hardworking | CC BY-SA 4.0 |