Timeline for Is this question appropriate for MO? (Recognizing cohomological ideas)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 15, 2015 at 18:03 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | Are you aware that your bounty expires in less than two hours? You have two answers on MSE waiting for you. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 19:47 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | I agree with Todd. I think it would be fine to migrate the question to MO. Making it CW would probably help, as there's an ocean of near-isomorphic answers that would appeal to people with different sensitivities. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 17:01 | comment | added | Adam Epstein | I concur. Meanwhile, you might find some of Colin McLarty's recent paper helpful. Even though these are concerned with the algebraic geometry story, the presentation pays close attention to set-theoretic issues. Further to this, topos theory - which has both geometrical and logical aspects - provides a general setting for cohomology | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 6:38 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | Generally speaking I think this type of question would be great as a CW question, and could garner some very fine answers if allowed to survive. My own preference would be to keep the question pretty soft and not too tied down to the specific set-theoretic context that first gave rise to it in your own case (although of course you can and should mention that), because it really is of interest in mathematics much more generally. I like your short version of the question. I'll step back and let others respond, but I hope it flies (and would be slightly disappointed if it doesn't). | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 3:19 | history | asked | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |