Impact
~9k
people reached
- 0 posts edited
- 0 helpful flags
- 15 votes cast
Nov
12 |
comment |
Semistable reduction and log structures
Ah that's actually really useful. I guess I had just naively assumed that you could glue the above log structure to get something on the whole of $X_k$, but clearly this was a mistake. |
Nov
2 |
asked | Semistable reduction and log structures |
Jun
7 |
awarded | Informed |
Apr
17 |
asked | Reference for a lemma on étale maps |
Mar
26 |
asked | Non-embeddable varieties |
Mar
14 |
awarded | Yearling |
Jan
13 |
awarded | Mortarboard |
Jan
12 |
comment |
When is “independence of l” known?
For the individual cohomology groups $H^i$, then no. |
Jan
8 |
revised |
When is “independence of l” known?
added 512 characters in body |
Jan
8 |
comment |
When is “independence of l” known?
But what you can deduce is $\ell$-independence for the alternating sums of traces. |
Jan
8 |
comment |
When is “independence of l” known?
Ah, actually reflecting on it a bit more, I think I got a bit carried away. What I was thinking was that if the weight-monodromy conjecture were true, then to know $\ell$-independence, you need to know $\ell$-independence of traces for everything appearing in the $E_2$ page of the weight spectral sequence (since these are then the graded pieces of the monodromy filtration). Now although you know independence of everything on the $E_1$ page, this doesn't imply $\ell$-independence for everything on the $E_2$ page (this was the mistake I made). |
Jan
5 |
revised |
When is “independence of l” known?
edited body |
Jan
5 |
revised |
When is “independence of l” known?
added 352 characters in body |
Jan
5 |
answered | When is “independence of l” known? |
Dec
15 |
accepted | “Weight-monodromy” for open varieties |
Dec
12 |
revised |
“Weight-monodromy” for open varieties
edited body |
Dec
12 |
asked | “Weight-monodromy” for open varieties |
Nov
13 |
answered | Algebraization isomorphism, formal existence, mod p |
Oct
17 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct
17 |
comment |
The topology on the Robba ring
Yes, I wondered about that but I don't think so. There will be elements of $\mathcal{R}_K$ for which that norm is not defined for any $r$, since we require convergence on some semi-open annulus $p^{-r}\leq t <1$ rather than the closed annulus $p^{-r}\leq t\leq 1$. |