Talk:Floer homology

message: I'm a college student with a strong background in math and physics and I can't make head or tail of this. Could someone please explain what the heck this article is about? —Keenan Pepper 23:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't you place the  {technical} tag in the main article page, rather than the talk page? --Byakuren 04:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about I read before I blurt stuff out??? Never mind...  --Byakuren 05:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a kinda wish I were allowed to put it on the article itself; then maybe people would pay attention. Do you have any idea what this is? Maybe you can explain it to me. —Keenan Pepper 05:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, dude, this is way out of my field.  I'm just an engineer, and I've taken up until graduate-level PDE's, and I have no idea what this article's about...  good luck!  --Byakuren 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please notice: There is a German version of this article now , made by user Claude J . It is a complete and perfect translation of the. text. There may be open questions, e.g. relative to the term “differential”. Let me recommend it to your attention. Erkabo 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please notice 

message: Dear All,
I came across this article for the first time today. It's well-written, by and large, but to my taste at least there are too many vague references. It seems to me that an article on a topic like this (which is still very much under construction) should be especially careful to give unamibguous references. (The reference to a "forthcoming book" of Mrowka and Kronheimer is a notable case in point --- this surely violates WP:ATT.)
Artie P.S. 09:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at the very least we should be able to give one citation in each section.  Each type of Floer homology has some kind of "foundational paper" in which it was invented.  These shouldn't be too hard to track down.  (This is on my to-do list after I finish my dissertation and graduate.  The eventual goal is to see each of these become a reasonably fleshed-out article in its own right.)  VectorPosse 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've never before seen the plural of the word homology (or cohomology, for that matter!). In fact, I thought that it had an attributive function (like school board), with the noun (initially, it was homology group') dropped, in which case plural would be impossible. But it stayed in the article for so long that I am just wondering if there is anything that I am missing here? Arcfrk 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, homology is kind of like a collective noun.  So it is okay to refer to "the homology" of a chain complex, meaning the collection of algebraic structures associated to a chain complex.  I don't know how correct it is, but one might refer to "a homology", meaning a homology theory.  And as there are many flavors of homology, one might refer to a bunch of them as "homologies".  If it bugs you, though, "homology" in this sense can be replaced by "homology theory" and "homologies" by "homology theories". VectorPosse 07:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A couple of Google hits:   VectorPosse 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Merriam-Webster has this  and this . I am no mathematician and not even a native speaker of English, but right from the first time I heard this word - which was more than 30 ears ago - it has always been used as a noun. And I think using a term as e.g. 'Floer homology' implies that there are other homologies, too.  --Rolf of Erkabo 07:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Homology" usually refers to all the homology groups of a complex. The term k(th) (co)homology group refers to a specific group; if one wishes to compare multiple different types of homology (simplicial vs. singular, for instance), one would refer to these as "homology theories".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.44.16 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A foliation of geodesics is characterized by having no "tangent homologies".
Well, I do not know if any of this "research" is of slightest importance, I certainly hadn't expected this to turn out to be such a convoluted question! On the other hand, grammatically correct or not, Floer homologies is supported by the literature. Arcfrk 04:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and I would add "knot homologies" due to Rasmussen's article.  (And he is not only a native speaker of English, but also a very trustworthy source of correct terminology.) VectorPosse 04:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homologies 

message: I add a subsection titled PSS isomorphism in order to obtain the equivalence between Floer homology and the ordinary homology of M and relate Floer homology with quantum cohomology ring. Perhaps, the article "quantum cohomology ring" might have written by another author.
--Enyokoyama (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  add PSS isomorphism