Mapping cone (homological algebra)In homological algebra, the mapping cone is a construction on a map of chain complexes inspired by the analogous construction in topology. In the theory of triangulated categories it is a kind of combined and cokernel: if the chain complexes take their terms in an , so that we can talk about cohomology, then the cone of a map f being acyclic means that the map is a quasi-isomorphism; if we pass to the of complexes, this means that f is an isomorphism there, which recalls the familiar property of maps of groups, modules over a ring, or elements of an arbitrary abelian category that if the kernel and cokernel both vanish, then the map is an isomorphism.
Localization of a categoryIn mathematics, localization of a category consists of adding to a inverse morphisms for some collection of morphisms, constraining them to become isomorphisms. This is formally similar to the process of localization of a ring; it in general makes objects isomorphic that were not so before. In homotopy theory, for example, there are many examples of mappings that are invertible up to homotopy; and so large classes of homotopy equivalent spaces. Calculus of fractions is another name for working in a localized category.
Injective sheafIn mathematics, injective sheaves of abelian groups are used to construct the resolutions needed to define sheaf cohomology (and other derived functors, such as sheaf Ext). There is a further group of related concepts applied to sheaves: flabby (flasque in French), fine, soft (mou in French), acyclic. In the history of the subject they were introduced before the 1957 "Tohoku paper" of Alexander Grothendieck, which showed that the notion of injective object sufficed to found the theory.
Six operationsIn mathematics, Grothendieck's six operations, named after Alexander Grothendieck, is a formalism in homological algebra, also known as the six-functor formalism. It originally sprang from the relations in étale cohomology that arise from a morphism of schemes f : X → Y. The basic insight was that many of the elementary facts relating cohomology on X and Y were formal consequences of a small number of axioms. These axioms hold in many cases completely unrelated to the original context, and therefore the formal consequences also hold.
