Timeline for What abstract nonsense is necessary to say the word "submersion"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
Dec 19, 2010 at 3:28 | vote | accept | Theo Johnson-Freyd | ||
Nov 14, 2010 at 10:31 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | This is not really much of an answer, but in an answer to a question by Harry Gindi, I find this reference: ens.math.univ-montp2.fr/~toen/m2.html - Toen's course on stacks. In Cours 2 there is a section on what he calls 'geometric contexts', which may be what you are looking for. | |
Nov 12, 2010 at 11:36 | answer | added | Wouter Stekelenburg | timeline score: 2 | |
Nov 8, 2010 at 19:35 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | @Todd: oh, good point. I was just going from some "regular monos are trying to be embeddings" claim on nLab, and clearly didn't check anything myself. In any case, one should expect the word "submersion" to need more than just the category; it should need some topology. | |
Nov 8, 2010 at 0:41 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Theo, I tend to think that regular monos in manifolds are probably closed embeddings. A regular mono is an equalizer, and if we're talking about the underlying spaces being Hausdorff, then regular monos are necessarily closed inclusions. Whether that's sufficient I haven't convinced myself of, but I'm interested in this. | |
Nov 8, 2010 at 0:23 | comment | added | David Carchedi | I've updated my answer Theo. Please take a look! | |
Nov 7, 2010 at 23:33 | answer | added | Harry Gindi | timeline score: 5 | |
Nov 7, 2010 at 23:12 | answer | added | David Roberts♦ | timeline score: 3 | |
Nov 7, 2010 at 23:07 | answer | added | David Carchedi | timeline score: 2 | |
Nov 7, 2010 at 22:36 | answer | added | Tom Goodwillie | timeline score: 7 | |
Nov 7, 2010 at 21:55 | history | asked | Theo Johnson-Freyd | CC BY-SA 2.5 |