Timeline for Is it reasonable to define `poset homotopy' as a `natural transformation of posets'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2011 at 9:18 | answer | added | Neil Strickland | timeline score: 10 | |
| Apr 11, 2011 at 20:21 | vote | accept | Mikola | ||
| Apr 11, 2011 at 20:04 | history | edited | Mikola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 19 characters in body
|
| Apr 11, 2011 at 20:03 | answer | added | Dylan Thurston | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 11, 2011 at 19:51 | comment | added | Dylan Thurston | In the finite case, a complete partial order is just a poset with a least element. The usual definition of a poset from a finite topology is to declare x < y in the poset if the closure of {x} contains y in the topology. I don't see why this needs to have a least (or greatest) element. | |
| Apr 11, 2011 at 19:32 | comment | added | Mikola | @Mariano: Thanks, I updated the question to reflect your comment. | |
| Apr 11, 2011 at 19:30 | history | edited | Mikola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Apr 11, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Re: your last paragraph: simplicial complexes are posets, but CW-complexes have more information than incidence, contained in their attaching maps. | |
| Apr 11, 2011 at 19:12 | history | asked | Mikola | CC BY-SA 3.0 |