Difference between revisions of "Talk:Equivariant cohomology"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Jargon ==
-I agree that this article is full of jargon, but I'm not really sure what could be done about it beyond just deleting the page.  Sure, I could go in and add more examples of classifying spaces, and motivate localization a little better, but the bottom line is that a certain amount of background is required to understand the importance of this topic at all, and I really can't imagine how I would write a terribly enlightening take on equivariant cohomology aimed at people who don't already have a solid understanding of, say, de Rham cohomology and group actions.  This page simply has some prerequisites and there's nothing to be done about that.  What are we supposed to do in such cases?  Either we flag it as appropriate for undergrads and don't worry about a bit of jargon, or we delete it; either way is fine by me in this case. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:29, 8 January 2010 (EST)
-:Start by describing [[de Rham cohomology]] and [[group actions]], then. If you can't handle that, we can always [[userfy]] the article. I don't like to delete works in progress, but if none of our readers can understand what you've written, then you are not communicating. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:34, 8 January 2010 (EST)

Revision as of 16:39, January 8, 2010