Results 1 
3 of
3
The algebra of cubes
, 2002
"... This is the first of two papers whose main purpose is to prove a generalization of the SeifertVan Kampen theorem on the fundamental group of a union of spaces. This generalisation (Theorem C of [8]) will give information in all dimensions and will include as special cases not only the above theorem ..."
Abstract

Cited by 125 (39 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is the first of two papers whose main purpose is to prove a generalization of the SeifertVan Kampen theorem on the fundamental group of a union of spaces. This generalisation (Theorem C of [8]) will give information in all dimensions and will include as special cases not only the above theorem (without the usual assumptions of pathconnectedness) but also
Categories and groupoids
, 1971
"... In 1968, when this book was written, categories had been around for 20 years and groupoids for twice as long. Category theory had by then become widely accepted as an essential tool in many parts of mathematics and a number of books on the subject had appeared, or were about to appear (e.g. [13, 22, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In 1968, when this book was written, categories had been around for 20 years and groupoids for twice as long. Category theory had by then become widely accepted as an essential tool in many parts of mathematics and a number of books on the subject had appeared, or were about to appear (e.g. [13, 22, 37, 58, 65] 1). By contrast, the use of groupoids was confined to a small number of pioneering articles, notably by Ehresmann [12] and Mackey [57], which were largely ignored by the mathematical community. Indeed groupoids were generally considered at that time not to be a subject for serious study. It was argued by several wellknown mathematicians that group theory sufficed for all situations where groupoids might be used, since a connected groupoid could be reduced to a group and a set. Curiously, this argument, which makes no appeal to elegance, was not applied to vector spaces: it was well known that the analogous reduction in this case is not canonical, and so is not available, when there is extra structure, even such simple structure as an endomorphism. Recently, Corfield in [41] has discussed methodological issues in mathematics with this topic, the resistance to the notion of groupoids, as a prime example. My book was intended chiefly as an attempt to reverse this general assessment of the time by presenting applications of groupoids to group theory
Tensor products and homotopies for ωgroupoids and crossed complexes
, 2007
"... Crossed complexes have longstanding uses, explicit and implicit, in homotopy theory and the cohomology of groups. It is here shown that the category of crossed complexes over groupoids has a symmetric monoidal closed structure in which the internal Hom functor is built from morphisms of crossed comp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (20 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Crossed complexes have longstanding uses, explicit and implicit, in homotopy theory and the cohomology of groups. It is here shown that the category of crossed complexes over groupoids has a symmetric monoidal closed structure in which the internal Hom functor is built from morphisms of crossed complexes, nonabelian chain homotopies between them and similar higher homotopies. The tensor product involves nonabelian constructions related to the commutator calculus and the homotopy addition lemma. This monoidal closed structure is derived from that on the equivalent category of ωgroupoids where the underlying cubical structure gives geometrically natural definitions of tensor products and homotopies.