Jump to content

Talk:Algebraic topology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Uprate, Replaced: =High → = top using AWB
m bot malfunctioning
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{maths rating|class=Start|importance= top|field=topology}}
{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance= top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Algebraic topology/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}


==Unsuitable as a general encyclopedic entry==
==Please Expand==
This article uses too much terminology from the field that it is concerned with and is thus only of use and interest to people immersed in said field. It does not serve to introduce the topic or to explain it in any way to someone who does not have some prior training in the field. This makes it unsuited as an entry in a general encyclopedia and makes it more suited to a specialized mathematical encyclopedia. Please rewrite it to include more introductory explanations and examples.
Algebraic topology is such a great subject; I wish this article were more involved. I don't have the expertise to expand it, but I'm sure someone out there in wiki-land does. Could someone maybe beef this thing up a bit? [[User:Amp]]
:[[:Category:Algebraic topology]] as a whole surely takes it a long way. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 08:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


[[Special:Contributions/41.204.193.43|41.204.193.43]] ([[User talk:41.204.193.43|talk]]) 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
==New To Advanced Math==
Hi;
I'm trying desperately to understand many of these advanced principals of mathematics, such as algebraic topology, but no matter how many times I review the material, it doesn't sink in. Could someone please provide examples, problems to solve (with their solutions) and/or ways to visualize this?
[[User:bachata|beno]] 26 Jan 2006


:I am not sure that it is as easily re-written as you suggest. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/31.53.52.243|31.53.52.243]] ([[User talk:31.53.52.243#top|talk]]) 08:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I'm sure the claim that homology groups are always finitely generated is a bit overenthusiastic. What do we need to assume, maybe connected manifolds? [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]
::I agree with the reply. I would also like to add that lots of topics in math have the property that you need some type of basic knowledge (master or sometimes research training) to be able to grasp them; if you try to rewrite them in a more "understandable" style a layman will still not understand, while a person with enough prior knowledge will not get anything out of it either. (A trivial example I've noted is that articles write "topological equivalence" rather than homeomorphism. This is a disservice to everybody; the person that does not know any math will not get a better understanding, while say a student of math will wonder if this is a concept that he/she has not yet encountered, so will be forced to click the link.) But this property that topics are hard to understand the first time cannot be exclusive to math. For example, I don't know biology; still, I don't expect that articles that mention "mitochondria" should be rewritten so that "mitochondria" is replaced with "cell that generate energy". (Yes, I know that mitochondria is not a cell, but we have to keep it simple so that everyone understands.) [[Special:Contributions/84.55.110.150|84.55.110.150]] ([[User talk:84.55.110.150|talk]]) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


==Correction==
The talk about torsion and orientability: when a space isn't a smooth manifold, orientability isn't any longer a naive concept.
I'd just like to point out an error:


"As another example, the top-dimensional integral homology group of a closed manifold detects orientability: this group is isomorphic to either the integers or 0, according as the manifold is orientable or not. "
[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 10:45, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Shouldn't that be the integers or the group of order 2?
In complement to Charles Matthews' comment:


[[Special:Contributions/87.194.112.50|87.194.112.50]] ([[User talk:87.194.112.50|talk]]) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
1) The first homology group of a plane minus an infinite number of disjoint holes is definitely not finitely generated. I think it is safe to say that "for a complex of finitely generated chain groups, the homology groups are finitely generated."


:I don't think it's an error (except that it doesn't say "''connected'' closed manifold"). Perhaps you are confusing top homology with top cohomology?
2) The relation of torsion and orientability is indeed not very simple, and one should take some care: One can define the homology of topological spaces where the notion of orientability makes no sense. However, for e.g. simplicial complexes, one can define the notion of orienting cycle, but I don't know if there are simplicial complexes with such cycles which do not cover a topological space which is acceptable for a manifold. Moreover, the question is not simple even for manifolds: The Möbius band is an example of a non-orientable manifold with boundary with no torsion in its absolute homology groups, and the lens spaces (in Hatcher's book) seem to be orientable manifolds, even if their absolute homology groups have torsion. There is a theorem which states that "The absolute homology groups of compact, orientable manifolds with boundary which are embeddable into R^3 are torsion-free". If you ease any of the assumptions 1) "absolute" 2) "compact" 3) "orientable" 4) "embeddable into R^3", you can demonstrate a counterexample with torsion.
:[[User:Ambrose H. Field|Ambrose H. Field]] ([[User talk:Ambrose H. Field|talk]]) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


== R. Brown ==
[[User:Saku|Saku Suuriniemi]]
Why are there so many references and notes sourced to R. Brown in this article? I am sure he is a fine topologist, but he isn't completely dominant in the field and a lot of his cited articles look to be on specialized topics not really suitable for a general overview of algebraic topology. It seems like undue weight and possible ref spamming. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


:I agree; I removed most of the material because it is not really good for an overview of algebraic topology, like you say, although it should probably be trimmed even more.[[User:Brirush|Brirush]] ([[User talk:Brirush|talk]]) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In reply to Saku Suuriniemi's comment:


==Assessment comment==
1) The only condition for f.g. homology that I run into regularly is if the space is a finite-type CW-complex, and by this I mean that the complex has finitely many cells in each dimension. (Easy proof: cellular homology.) Certainly the claim you make in quotation marks is true (Z is noetherian).
{{Substituted comment|length=1500|lastedit=20091121111106|comment=Needs material on history, major sub-divisions and examples (such as the fundamental group); introduction and section on applications / major theorems needs expansion. [[User:Tompw|Tompw]] 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Must expand significantly by (at least) discussing the types of questions addressed by alg. top. and applications to other areas of maths, providing brief overviews of the main theories / techniques (such as homotopy, various (co-) homologies, stable homotopy,...) and having links to articles that develop these further. As for the history section, a good source for that (if not most of the article!) is Dieudonné's A History of Algebraic and Differential Topology 1900-1960 ({{ISBN|081763388X}}).
2) The assertion about torsion and orientability is clearly false as you note. Example: RP<sup>3</sup>, 3-dimensional real projective space. However the lens spaces are not always orientable: the real projective spaces are all lens spaces, but RP<sup>n</sup> is orientable if and only if n is odd. So H<sub>k</sub>(RP<sup>n</sup>) = Z/2, 0 < k < n, k and n odd is our counterexample. (Reference: Hatcher, AT, p. 144.) I feel I should point out, though, that we can always define orientability with respect to G-homology for any G, for any space. Moreover, since I see this topic has been dormant for a long time, I will go ahead and make the necessary changes.
⚫
[[User:Stca74|Stca74]] 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


A great deal of pruning is needed. There is too much technical density here, and the list of notable algebraic topologists ought to be elsewhere. I think this article should be rewritten virtually from scratch by someone with a gift for exposition. A suitable reference at this level would be for instance M. A. Armstrong's book "Basic Topology".
⚫
[[User:Alodyne|Alodyne]] 05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


It is right that this should be a short article, directing readers quickly to [[Euler Characteristic]], [[Homology theory]], [[Homotopy]], [[Fundamental group]]. Even better might be to merge the article [[Homology theory]] into a newly-rewritten [[Algebraic topology]].
: [[User:Ambrose H. Field|Ambrose H. Field]] ([[User talk:Ambrose H. Field|talk]]) 11:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)}}
Substituted at 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
Long time, no visit. I'm not sure what your point 2) concerns. The assertion about the existence of the theorem? If so, then are you sure RP<sup>3</sup> embeds to R<sup>3</sup>? I doubt it. What comes to the orientability of the lens spaces, if you find even a single orientable lens space with torsion, it is a counterexample to the "orientable => no torsion" - "torsion => non-orientable" implication pair. The "non-orientable => torsion" - "no torsion => orientable" pair sank with the Möbius band. What I'm trying to explain is that the relation between the two is not at all simple.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Algebraic topology]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=788454009 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
--[[User:Saku|Saku]] 14:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604050453/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604050453/http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~mas010/nonab-a-t.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.bangor.ac.uk/r.brown/topgpds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:20, 2 April 2024

Unsuitable as a general encyclopedic entry

[edit]

This article uses too much terminology from the field that it is concerned with and is thus only of use and interest to people immersed in said field. It does not serve to introduce the topic or to explain it in any way to someone who does not have some prior training in the field. This makes it unsuited as an entry in a general encyclopedia and makes it more suited to a specialized mathematical encyclopedia. Please rewrite it to include more introductory explanations and examples.

41.204.193.43 (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it is as easily re-written as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.243 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reply. I would also like to add that lots of topics in math have the property that you need some type of basic knowledge (master or sometimes research training) to be able to grasp them; if you try to rewrite them in a more "understandable" style a layman will still not understand, while a person with enough prior knowledge will not get anything out of it either. (A trivial example I've noted is that articles write "topological equivalence" rather than homeomorphism. This is a disservice to everybody; the person that does not know any math will not get a better understanding, while say a student of math will wonder if this is a concept that he/she has not yet encountered, so will be forced to click the link.) But this property that topics are hard to understand the first time cannot be exclusive to math. For example, I don't know biology; still, I don't expect that articles that mention "mitochondria" should be rewritten so that "mitochondria" is replaced with "cell that generate energy". (Yes, I know that mitochondria is not a cell, but we have to keep it simple so that everyone understands.) 84.55.110.150 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[edit]

I'd just like to point out an error:

"As another example, the top-dimensional integral homology group of a closed manifold detects orientability: this group is isomorphic to either the integers or 0, according as the manifold is orientable or not. "

Shouldn't that be the integers or the group of order 2?

87.194.112.50 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an error (except that it doesn't say "connected closed manifold"). Perhaps you are confusing top homology with top cohomology?
Ambrose H. Field (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. Brown

[edit]

Why are there so many references and notes sourced to R. Brown in this article? I am sure he is a fine topologist, but he isn't completely dominant in the field and a lot of his cited articles look to be on specialized topics not really suitable for a general overview of algebraic topology. It seems like undue weight and possible ref spamming. --Mark viking (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I removed most of the material because it is not really good for an overview of algebraic topology, like you say, although it should probably be trimmed even more.Brirush (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Algebraic topology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Needs material on history, major sub-divisions and examples (such as the fundamental group); introduction and section on applications / major theorems needs expansion. Tompw 18:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must expand significantly by (at least) discussing the types of questions addressed by alg. top. and applications to other areas of maths, providing brief overviews of the main theories / techniques (such as homotopy, various (co-) homologies, stable homotopy,...) and having links to articles that develop these further. As for the history section, a good source for that (if not most of the article!) is Dieudonné's A History of Algebraic and Differential Topology 1900-1960 (ISBN 081763388X). Stca74 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of pruning is needed. There is too much technical density here, and the list of notable algebraic topologists ought to be elsewhere. I think this article should be rewritten virtually from scratch by someone with a gift for exposition. A suitable reference at this level would be for instance M. A. Armstrong's book "Basic Topology".

It is right that this should be a short article, directing readers quickly to Euler Characteristic, Homology theory, Homotopy, Fundamental group. Even better might be to merge the article Homology theory into a newly-rewritten Algebraic topology.

Ambrose H. Field (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Algebraic topology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Algebraic_topology&oldid=1216894499"