Is every dg-coalgebra the colimit of its finite dimensional dg-subcoalgebras?In which categories is every...



Is every dg-coalgebra the colimit of its finite dimensional dg-subcoalgebras?


In which categories is every coalgebra a sum of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras?“Strøm-type” model structure on chain complexes?Is there a model category structure on non-negatively graded commutative chain algebras?Resolutions by Adapted Class of Objects and Model CategoriesMaps between sets and coalgebrasBounded dg algebra vs unbounded dg algebrasTensor product of coaugmented conilpotent coalgebrasBuilding conilpotent coalgebras from co-square-zero-extensionsLimits in subcategories of Powerset-coalgebrasIs $text{DGA}^{-}$ a monoidal model category?













3












$begingroup$


I saw this result in A Model Category Structure for Differential Graded Coalgebras by Getzler-Goerss, but when the coalgebra is non-negatively graded, is this property also satisfied when the dg coalgebra is $mathbb{Z}$-graded?.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


I saw this result in A Model Category Structure for Differential Graded Coalgebras by Getzler-Goerss, but when the coalgebra is non-negatively graded, is this property also satisfied when the dg coalgebra is $mathbb{Z}$-graded?.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


I saw this result in A Model Category Structure for Differential Graded Coalgebras by Getzler-Goerss, but when the coalgebra is non-negatively graded, is this property also satisfied when the dg coalgebra is $mathbb{Z}$-graded?.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I saw this result in A Model Category Structure for Differential Graded Coalgebras by Getzler-Goerss, but when the coalgebra is non-negatively graded, is this property also satisfied when the dg coalgebra is $mathbb{Z}$-graded?.



Thanks.







at.algebraic-topology kt.k-theory-and-homology model-categories coalgebras dg-categories






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









David White

13.2k464105




13.2k464105










asked 8 hours ago









Victor TCVictor TC

962




962












  • $begingroup$
    The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
    $endgroup$
    – David White
    7 hours ago
















$begingroup$
The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
$endgroup$
– David White
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
The result the OP is pointing to in Getzler-Goerss is Corollary 1.6.
$endgroup$
– David White
7 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Yes. The category of $mathbb{Z}$-coalgebras is locally presentable, and objects are filtered colimits of finite dimensional subobjects. See the appendix to Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories by Ching and Riehl. See also Lemma 5.2 of Model Structures for Coalgebras by Drummond-Cole and Hirsh. This paper of Adamek and Porst might also be helpful.



By the way, the main result of the Getzler-Goerss paper you cite is generalized in Corollary 6.3.5 of A necessary and sufficient condition for induced model structures by Hess, Kedziorek, Riehl, and Shipley. It works for any $mathbb{Z}$-graded coalgebras over any commutative ring $R$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, I will check the references.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor TC
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago












  • $begingroup$
    @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago



















1












$begingroup$

For coassociative dg-coalgebras over any field $k$ the answer is positive, because:




  1. Let $C$ be a $mathbb Z$-graded coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ a finite-dimensional ungraded subcoalgebra (of the underlying ungraded coalgebra) of $C$. Let $D^{gr}subset C$ denote the graded vector subspace spanned by all the grading components of the elements of $D$. Then $Dsubset D^{gr}$ and $D^{gr}$ is a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$.


  2. Let $(C,d)$ be a dg-coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ be a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$. Set $D^{dg}=D+d(D)subset C$. Then $Dsubset D^{dg}$ and $D^{dg}$ is a finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebra of $C$.



Using the observations 1. and 2. and the fact that any ungraded coassociative coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, one deduces the assertion that any $mathbb Z$-graded dg-coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebras.



Possible generalizations: One can replace a field $k$ by a Noetherian commutative ring $k$ and speak about subcoalgebras that are finitely generated as $k$-modules (instead of "finite-dimensional"). All the assertions remain true.



One cannot drop the coassociativity condition. Indeed, even for ungraded coalgebras over a field of characteristic $0$, there is an example of a infinite-dimensional Lie coalgebra $L$ having no nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebras. The Lie coalgebra $L$ is simplest described in terms of its dual topological Lie algebra structure (on a pro-finite-dimensional topological vector space): $L^*=mathfrak g=k[[z]],d/dz$, the Lie algebra of vector fields on the formal disk.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330299%2fis-every-dg-coalgebra-the-colimit-of-its-finite-dimensional-dg-subcoalgebras%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Yes. The category of $mathbb{Z}$-coalgebras is locally presentable, and objects are filtered colimits of finite dimensional subobjects. See the appendix to Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories by Ching and Riehl. See also Lemma 5.2 of Model Structures for Coalgebras by Drummond-Cole and Hirsh. This paper of Adamek and Porst might also be helpful.



    By the way, the main result of the Getzler-Goerss paper you cite is generalized in Corollary 6.3.5 of A necessary and sufficient condition for induced model structures by Hess, Kedziorek, Riehl, and Shipley. It works for any $mathbb{Z}$-graded coalgebras over any commutative ring $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much, I will check the references.
      $endgroup$
      – Victor TC
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago












    • $begingroup$
      @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    Yes. The category of $mathbb{Z}$-coalgebras is locally presentable, and objects are filtered colimits of finite dimensional subobjects. See the appendix to Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories by Ching and Riehl. See also Lemma 5.2 of Model Structures for Coalgebras by Drummond-Cole and Hirsh. This paper of Adamek and Porst might also be helpful.



    By the way, the main result of the Getzler-Goerss paper you cite is generalized in Corollary 6.3.5 of A necessary and sufficient condition for induced model structures by Hess, Kedziorek, Riehl, and Shipley. It works for any $mathbb{Z}$-graded coalgebras over any commutative ring $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much, I will check the references.
      $endgroup$
      – Victor TC
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago












    • $begingroup$
      @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Yes. The category of $mathbb{Z}$-coalgebras is locally presentable, and objects are filtered colimits of finite dimensional subobjects. See the appendix to Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories by Ching and Riehl. See also Lemma 5.2 of Model Structures for Coalgebras by Drummond-Cole and Hirsh. This paper of Adamek and Porst might also be helpful.



    By the way, the main result of the Getzler-Goerss paper you cite is generalized in Corollary 6.3.5 of A necessary and sufficient condition for induced model structures by Hess, Kedziorek, Riehl, and Shipley. It works for any $mathbb{Z}$-graded coalgebras over any commutative ring $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Yes. The category of $mathbb{Z}$-coalgebras is locally presentable, and objects are filtered colimits of finite dimensional subobjects. See the appendix to Coalgebraic models for combinatorial model categories by Ching and Riehl. See also Lemma 5.2 of Model Structures for Coalgebras by Drummond-Cole and Hirsh. This paper of Adamek and Porst might also be helpful.



    By the way, the main result of the Getzler-Goerss paper you cite is generalized in Corollary 6.3.5 of A necessary and sufficient condition for induced model structures by Hess, Kedziorek, Riehl, and Shipley. It works for any $mathbb{Z}$-graded coalgebras over any commutative ring $R$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 7 hours ago









    David WhiteDavid White

    13.2k464105




    13.2k464105












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much, I will check the references.
      $endgroup$
      – Victor TC
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago












    • $begingroup$
      @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Thank you very much, I will check the references.
      $endgroup$
      – Victor TC
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
      $endgroup$
      – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago












    • $begingroup$
      @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
      $endgroup$
      – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
      1 hour ago
















    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, I will check the references.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor TC
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thank you very much, I will check the references.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor TC
    6 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @VictorTC As an additional remark, this is true more in general for coalgebras over cooperads, see Lemmas 4, 5, and Proposition 12 of the article Homotopy theory of unital algebras by B. Le Grignou.
    $endgroup$
    – Daniel Robert-Nicoud
    4 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago






    $begingroup$
    N.B., we work explicitly with conilpotent coalgebras, and I do not know how to extend our method for proving presentability to the full category of coalgebras. So our paper may not be particularly useful for you.
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago














    $begingroup$
    @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    @DanielRobert-Nicoud do you know how to resolve the seeming discrepancy between Lemma 5 of Le Grignou and Leonid's counterexample below?
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole
    1 hour ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    For coassociative dg-coalgebras over any field $k$ the answer is positive, because:




    1. Let $C$ be a $mathbb Z$-graded coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ a finite-dimensional ungraded subcoalgebra (of the underlying ungraded coalgebra) of $C$. Let $D^{gr}subset C$ denote the graded vector subspace spanned by all the grading components of the elements of $D$. Then $Dsubset D^{gr}$ and $D^{gr}$ is a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$.


    2. Let $(C,d)$ be a dg-coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ be a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$. Set $D^{dg}=D+d(D)subset C$. Then $Dsubset D^{dg}$ and $D^{dg}$ is a finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebra of $C$.



    Using the observations 1. and 2. and the fact that any ungraded coassociative coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, one deduces the assertion that any $mathbb Z$-graded dg-coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebras.



    Possible generalizations: One can replace a field $k$ by a Noetherian commutative ring $k$ and speak about subcoalgebras that are finitely generated as $k$-modules (instead of "finite-dimensional"). All the assertions remain true.



    One cannot drop the coassociativity condition. Indeed, even for ungraded coalgebras over a field of characteristic $0$, there is an example of a infinite-dimensional Lie coalgebra $L$ having no nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebras. The Lie coalgebra $L$ is simplest described in terms of its dual topological Lie algebra structure (on a pro-finite-dimensional topological vector space): $L^*=mathfrak g=k[[z]],d/dz$, the Lie algebra of vector fields on the formal disk.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      For coassociative dg-coalgebras over any field $k$ the answer is positive, because:




      1. Let $C$ be a $mathbb Z$-graded coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ a finite-dimensional ungraded subcoalgebra (of the underlying ungraded coalgebra) of $C$. Let $D^{gr}subset C$ denote the graded vector subspace spanned by all the grading components of the elements of $D$. Then $Dsubset D^{gr}$ and $D^{gr}$ is a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$.


      2. Let $(C,d)$ be a dg-coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ be a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$. Set $D^{dg}=D+d(D)subset C$. Then $Dsubset D^{dg}$ and $D^{dg}$ is a finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebra of $C$.



      Using the observations 1. and 2. and the fact that any ungraded coassociative coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, one deduces the assertion that any $mathbb Z$-graded dg-coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebras.



      Possible generalizations: One can replace a field $k$ by a Noetherian commutative ring $k$ and speak about subcoalgebras that are finitely generated as $k$-modules (instead of "finite-dimensional"). All the assertions remain true.



      One cannot drop the coassociativity condition. Indeed, even for ungraded coalgebras over a field of characteristic $0$, there is an example of a infinite-dimensional Lie coalgebra $L$ having no nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebras. The Lie coalgebra $L$ is simplest described in terms of its dual topological Lie algebra structure (on a pro-finite-dimensional topological vector space): $L^*=mathfrak g=k[[z]],d/dz$, the Lie algebra of vector fields on the formal disk.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        For coassociative dg-coalgebras over any field $k$ the answer is positive, because:




        1. Let $C$ be a $mathbb Z$-graded coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ a finite-dimensional ungraded subcoalgebra (of the underlying ungraded coalgebra) of $C$. Let $D^{gr}subset C$ denote the graded vector subspace spanned by all the grading components of the elements of $D$. Then $Dsubset D^{gr}$ and $D^{gr}$ is a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$.


        2. Let $(C,d)$ be a dg-coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ be a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$. Set $D^{dg}=D+d(D)subset C$. Then $Dsubset D^{dg}$ and $D^{dg}$ is a finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebra of $C$.



        Using the observations 1. and 2. and the fact that any ungraded coassociative coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, one deduces the assertion that any $mathbb Z$-graded dg-coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebras.



        Possible generalizations: One can replace a field $k$ by a Noetherian commutative ring $k$ and speak about subcoalgebras that are finitely generated as $k$-modules (instead of "finite-dimensional"). All the assertions remain true.



        One cannot drop the coassociativity condition. Indeed, even for ungraded coalgebras over a field of characteristic $0$, there is an example of a infinite-dimensional Lie coalgebra $L$ having no nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebras. The Lie coalgebra $L$ is simplest described in terms of its dual topological Lie algebra structure (on a pro-finite-dimensional topological vector space): $L^*=mathfrak g=k[[z]],d/dz$, the Lie algebra of vector fields on the formal disk.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        For coassociative dg-coalgebras over any field $k$ the answer is positive, because:




        1. Let $C$ be a $mathbb Z$-graded coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ a finite-dimensional ungraded subcoalgebra (of the underlying ungraded coalgebra) of $C$. Let $D^{gr}subset C$ denote the graded vector subspace spanned by all the grading components of the elements of $D$. Then $Dsubset D^{gr}$ and $D^{gr}$ is a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$.


        2. Let $(C,d)$ be a dg-coalgebra and $Dsubset C$ be a finite-dimensional graded subcoalgebra of $C$. Set $D^{dg}=D+d(D)subset C$. Then $Dsubset D^{dg}$ and $D^{dg}$ is a finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebra of $C$.



        Using the observations 1. and 2. and the fact that any ungraded coassociative coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, one deduces the assertion that any $mathbb Z$-graded dg-coalgebra is the union of its finite-dimensional dg-subcoalgebras.



        Possible generalizations: One can replace a field $k$ by a Noetherian commutative ring $k$ and speak about subcoalgebras that are finitely generated as $k$-modules (instead of "finite-dimensional"). All the assertions remain true.



        One cannot drop the coassociativity condition. Indeed, even for ungraded coalgebras over a field of characteristic $0$, there is an example of a infinite-dimensional Lie coalgebra $L$ having no nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebras. The Lie coalgebra $L$ is simplest described in terms of its dual topological Lie algebra structure (on a pro-finite-dimensional topological vector space): $L^*=mathfrak g=k[[z]],d/dz$, the Lie algebra of vector fields on the formal disk.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 3 hours ago









        Leonid PositselskiLeonid Positselski

        11.2k13977




        11.2k13977






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330299%2fis-every-dg-coalgebra-the-colimit-of-its-finite-dimensional-dg-subcoalgebras%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            El tren de la libertad Índice Antecedentes "Porque yo decido" Desarrollo de la...

            Castillo d'Acher Características Menú de navegación

            Connecting two nodes from the same mother node horizontallyTikZ: What EXACTLY does the the |- notation for...