Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with derived-functors
Search options not deleted
user 22810
7
votes
1
answer
383
views
The naive approach to deriving profunctors - What's wrong with it?
Let $(\mathcal{C,W})$ be relative category (equipped with a wide subcategory of weak equivalences satisfying 2 out of 3 property). Consider a profunctor $F: \mathcal{C \times D^{op}} \to \mathsf{Set}$ …
- 7,799
1
vote
What is integration along the fibers in D-module theory?
(All functors and categories are derived, all $\mathcal{D}$-modules are holonomic and $f: X \to Y$ is proper for simplicity).
We may use the adjunction $\int_f \dashv f^!$ to get some interpretation …
- 7,799