Timeline for What is a cohomology theory (seriously)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2023 at 7:55 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Mar 14, 2018 at 3:34 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Steve perhaps you wanted the 1-lab instead.... :-) | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 17:33 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Arminius is right. I've never had any real need for category theory beyond understanding the words "morphism" and "functor", and the nlab is completely opaque to me. | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 16:09 | comment | added | user717 | Well, sometimes Wikipedia is better if you don't know what an (\infty,1)-category is, because the number of entries in nlab you can read without knowing this is close to 0 :) (serious) | |
| Nov 20, 2009 at 12:14 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | -1 for using wikipedia instead of the n-lab (NOT serious) | |
| Nov 19, 2009 at 17:26 | comment | added | user717 | This is a (the?) universal Weil cohomology theory, right? So all this is just about this particular kind of cohomology theories!? | |
| Nov 19, 2009 at 17:17 | history | answered | Steve Huntsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |