Timeline for Extending the definition of "pure of dimension n" from simplicial complexes to simplicial sets?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2017 at 13:20 | vote | accept | Harry Gindi | ||
| Jan 3, 2012 at 2:44 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | The original definition simply doesn't work. There is no such object as $S'$. | |
| Jan 3, 2012 at 0:22 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | What is the reason for the different definition? It seems like your condition might even be equivalent (didn't check). | |
| Jan 3, 2012 at 0:10 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1875 characters in body
|
| Jan 2, 2012 at 23:10 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Hmm, you're right. :/ | |
| Jan 2, 2012 at 19:34 | comment | added | Karol Szumiło | There is no such functor as your $R$. You cannot just "remove all degenerate simplices" since some degenerate simplices may be faces of non-degenerate ones. You can consider all simplices which are faces of non-degenerate simplices, they form so called "core" of a simplicial set. However, the core is not functorial. Of course both adjoints you mention exist, but they go the opposite direction than your $R$. | |
| Dec 31, 2011 at 20:00 | history | answered | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |