Timeline for Gluing $n$ $2(n-1)$-simplices
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S May 21 at 4:22 | history | suggested | J. W. Tanner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Drop the -e before adding -ing
|
May 20 at 21:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
S May 21 at 4:22 | |||||
May 20 at 15:33 | vote | accept | Bipolar Minds | ||
May 20 at 14:35 | answer | added | Dave Benson | timeline score: 4 | |
May 20 at 13:44 | history | edited | Bipolar Minds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 61 characters in body
|
May 20 at 13:20 | history | edited | Bipolar Minds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
May 20 at 13:12 | comment | added | Bipolar Minds | Sorry, there was a mistake in the "they all intersect"-part. I changed it and also the convention. | |
May 20 at 13:10 | history | edited | Bipolar Minds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
May 20 at 12:27 | comment | added | Achim Krause | Not to my understanding (both an $n$-simplex and a $n$-cell are $n$-dimensional objects), but regardless of conventions, there seems to be an inconsistency either way (since you also write "they all intersect in a $(2n-3)$-cell", and in your $n=2$ example they do intersect in a $1$-simplex). But these problems aside, it's not clear how to extrapolate from the two examples you give. | |
May 20 at 12:16 | comment | added | Bipolar Minds | Ah, I thought that $n$-simplex = $(n+1)$-cell. Is that not true? | |
May 20 at 12:12 | comment | added | Achim Krause | You write "...can be glued together on common $2(n-1)$-cells", but in your $n=2$ example they are glued along a $1$-simplex, not a $2$-simplex. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I can't extrapolate from the two examples you're giving. | |
May 20 at 12:06 | history | asked | Bipolar Minds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |