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 equivariant-cohomology
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 9928
9
votes
Accepted
Equivariant Cohomology for actions with finite stabilizers
The argument in the quoted paper is a bit too sketchy. An actual proof will have two parts:
Let $f:X \to Y$ be map. Assume that for each $y \in Y$, $\tilde{H}^{\ast} (f^{-1}(y);\mathbb{Q})=0$ (this …
- 20.9k