Impact
~78k
people reached
- 0 posts edited
- 0 helpful flags
- 33 votes cast
Apr
26 |
comment |
On the coherence of formal power series ring
... natural integers. In the former ring, the element $X_1+X_2+\dots$ is not allowed; in the latter it is. |
Apr
26 |
comment |
On the coherence of formal power series ring
What I meant is that there is no canonical definition of a ring of formal power series in countably many variables. There are several candidates, each with its own interest depending on the situation. One natural candidate is the completion of the ring of polynomials $F_p[X_1,X_2,\dots]$ with respect to the maximal ideal $(X_1,X_2,\dots)$. Another useful candidate is that introduced in Bourbaki, Algèbre, chapitre IV, whose elements are arbitrary formal sums of monomials $a_iX^i$ with $i$ a finite tuple of... |
Apr
25 |
comment |
On the coherence of formal power series ring
The notation is misleading: is $X_\infty$ a variable? Also, you should clarify what you mean by "power series ring with infinitely many variables" since there are several possible definitions (e.g. sometimes the series $X_1+X_2+X_3+\dots$ is allowed and sometimes it is not). |
Apr
18 |
comment |
Finite group action on quasi-projective varieties
Dear Ron, the best-known counterexample is due to Hironaka. It appears here and there in the literature; a good source is wikipedia's page for "Hironaka's example". |
Apr
17 |
comment |
Finite group action on quasi-projective varieties
If a quotient exists as a variety or a scheme, then the fibres of $\alpha$ will be the same as $G$-orbits, and all contained in an open affine of $X$. But there exist group actions like in your setting where this condition fails, and hence no scheme quotient exists. Thus you must clarify what you mean by "the quotient". Another comment is that since you assume the action is free, if a quotient exists then $\alpha$ will in fact be \'etale everywhere. |
Apr
4 |
awarded | Favorite Question |
Feb
1 |
comment |
Definition of ind-schemes
OK, I wrote down the details for myself... you're right. Sorry. |
Feb
1 |
comment |
Definition of ind-schemes
@Martin: I don't think so. In fact, if you restrict to quasi-compact schemes and coverings formed by finite (flat, jointly surjective etc.) families then the inductive limit presheaf is a sheaf. Therefore the map from the presheaf to the sheaf is an isomorphism when evaluated on qc schemes. It is not really a question of glueing things and covering the intersections with affines etc. |
Feb
1 |
comment |
Definition of ind-schemes
The equality $\text{Hom}(Y,\varinjlim X_n)=\varinjlim \text{Hom}(Y,X_n)$ extends quite easily from affine schemes $Y$ to quasi-compact ones. Away from qc schemes, I do not think it works. |
Jan
31 |
answered | A technical question about affine grassmanian |
Jan
31 |
comment |
A technical question about affine grassmanian
You're welcome! |
Jan
30 |
comment |
A technical question about affine grassmanian
I think you can find more details in Martin Kreidl's thesis, available at uni-due.de/~hx0051/Dissertation.pdf. Best, |
Jan
26 |
awarded | Necromancer |
Jan
24 |
awarded | Revival |
Jan
24 |
comment |
Flat cohomology for finite infinitesimal group scheme over a perfect field
"some more argument seems to be needed to explain why $X^{perf}$ is a $G^{perf}$-torsor" : perfectization commutes with products, so if the map $G\times X \to X\times X$ is an isomorphism then $G^{perf}\times X^{perf} \to X^{perf}\times X^{perf}$ also. |
Jan
24 |
answered | Flat cohomology for finite infinitesimal group scheme over a perfect field |
Jan
3 |
comment |
Nisnevich topology on non-(locally) Noetherian schemes
"the guy who asked", or "the girl who asked". After all, MO is for female mathematicians also. |
Jan
2 |
revised |
Descent of functions along finite birational morphisms
added 306 characters in body |
Jan
1 |
revised |
Pushing-forward morphisms
added 5 characters in body |
Dec
31 |
revised |
Pushing-forward morphisms
added 16 characters in body |