Timeline for Relation between cohomology of ordered and unordered configuration spaces?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2018 at 9:11 | history | edited | Michael Albanese | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 7, 2011 at 6:02 | comment | added | Giacomo d'Antonio | Well, as far as I know you can prove the result for Cech cohomology with the only condition that $X$ is paracompact. Then you need to impose conditions for the Cech cohomology to be (naturally) isomorphic to the singular one. Does this require compactness? Regarding that attribution, honestly I don't know it. | |
| Apr 7, 2011 at 0:20 | comment | added | John Klein | I would suspect that $X$ would need to be compact here, and the action of $G$ should be reasonably well-behaved (say simplicial with respect to some choice of triangulation). I also believe that this result is originally due to Grothendieck. Am I wrong? | |
| Apr 6, 2011 at 12:41 | history | answered | Giacomo d'Antonio | CC BY-SA 2.5 |