Timeline for Continuous cohomology of a profinite group is not a delta functor
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 7, 2021 at 1:07 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Aug 7, 2021 at 1:07 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 29, 2021 at 23:31 | history | bounty started | stupid_question_bot | ||
| S Jul 29, 2021 at 23:31 | history | notice added | stupid_question_bot | Draw attention | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 6, 2018 at 22:22 | comment | added | gdb | @AndréHenrique Thanks for the reference! I can't find this paper in the web as well as in university's library. Do you have a copy of it? I am a bit suspicious about this result since it seems that Bhatt and Scholze in their paper (arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1198.pdf) suggest that continuous cohomology of profinite groups shouldn't form a "delta functor" (a sentence after Remark $4.3.10$). Is it true that Segal has the same definition of exact sequence and delta functor? Of course, it is possible that they just weren't aware of this Segal's paper, but I've seen this claim many times in NTbooks | |
| Oct 6, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | André Henriques | The cohomology of topological groups defined by Segal in [1] is a delta functor, and agrees with continuous cohomology when the group is totally disconnected. Reference: [1] Segal, G. Cohomology of topological groups. In Symposia Mathematica, Vol. IV (INDAM, Rome, 1968/69), pp. 377–387 (Academic Press, London, 1970) | |
| Oct 6, 2018 at 8:39 | history | edited | gdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Oct 6, 2018 at 8:03 | history | edited | gdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 6, 2018 at 7:20 | history | edited | gdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Oct 6, 2018 at 6:35 | history | asked | gdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |