Timeline for Singular complex = cohomology ring + Steenrod operations?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2011 at 18:50 | vote | accept | roger123 | ||
| Feb 19, 2011 at 0:43 | answer | added | Fernando Muro | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 19:59 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | I see. Well, anyway, I undeleted it and edited it a bit. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 15:16 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | @tom you can still see it but we can't. It is still there for you or a moderator to undelete. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 14:07 | comment | added | Tom Goodwillie | I posted an answer and then noticed that it's really an answer to a different question. Then I "deleted" it, but it's still there. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 14:05 | answer | added | Tom Goodwillie | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 12:44 | comment | added | arsmath | I assume he means "up to weak equivalence". | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 12:25 | answer | added | Tilman | timeline score: 20 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 | comment | added | Vivek Shende | This can't be literally true, $X \times \mathbb{R}$ has a much bigger complex of singular simplices than $X$... or do you mean something else by "singular complex" ? | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 10:40 | history | edited | Charles Matthews | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
typo
|
| Feb 18, 2011 at 10:11 | answer | added | Mark Grant | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 9:11 | history | asked | roger123 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |