Consider the stack $Ell$ (of groupoids) of elliptic curves. I'm interested in the autoequivalence 2-group of $Ell$, the objects of which consists of transformations $Ell \Rightarrow Ell: Ring \to Gpd$ valued in equivalences of groupoids. The arrows are isomorphisms of such transformations.
In a ...
yeah. but you're right, I mean, we don't want this to be a place where people come in and say "HEY GUYS I MADE THIS COOL QUESTION ON MATH.SE CHECK IT OUT"
or even on mathoverflow
because that would be even more detrimental to the purpose of this room
Was anyone surprised when he heared the first time that $|\beta(\mathbb{N})|\geq |[0,1]^{[0,1]}|$ where $|\cdot|$ means the cardinality and $\beta$ is the Stone Chech compactifiction
however it seems interesting. my advisor and i often spoke about the bousfield lattice of spectra, and there's all this crazy stuff floating around, and he would always say "well maybe it's like the compactification of the integers, you know, all kinds of uninteresting junk floating around"
i'm gonna put that one on the back burner. i wanna talk to you about that cogroup scheme stuff that i was blathering about earlier, are u free right now to chat?
i heard mike hill mention something earlier today that bob stong wrote a book on formal group laws because he didn't like any of the available treatments, and what he ended up with was a really rich description of the connection to bordism, since he's such an expert
and then he didn't publish it. and then he passed away in the late 2000s.
it would be neat to get a chance to look at the manuscript
i've separately heard other people complain about how poorly understood quillen's original proof of the MU_* theorem is (relative to the 'elementary proofs...' paper)
at the very least, i'm sure stong elucidated that thing
i've seen various single sentences to this effect in various papers, like that Po Hu paper i mentioned at Talbot, which I have not been able to find again
which is why I'm thinking i need to just get down to nuts and bolts and work out very carefully what Thomification of morphisms looks like, at least for complex vb's
anyway. yeah, sorry, not trying to trick you into a serious convo
@JonBeardsley, sent you an email at addresses on C.M.L. Also editted David's question a little, which now seems to have been unnecessary, plus it makes my name show up on the "active" sort. I meant well.
It really helps that people like Tyler Lawson are willing to help out the younger generation. I would name other names, but it would take too long. Last night was a great example of what this should be.