Timeline for homomorphism into reductive groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2012 at 13:21 | history | edited | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 322 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2012 at 0:43 | history | edited | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1019 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2012 at 22:39 | comment | added | YCor | No, I consider the construction as canonical because it does not make use of any choice. So the word "canonical" is accurate, and it indeed has the consequence of stability already mentioned, but, I mean, can't be defined only by this stability property. | |
| Aug 8, 2012 at 20:37 | comment | added | user22479 | Yves, uniqueness doesn't hold in general (see my expanded remarks just below the statement of the Refined Theorem). I'm happy to replace the word "canonical" with something else, but I lacked an idea for a more suitable word when I was writing the answer. Feel free to suggest alternatives. | |
| Aug 8, 2012 at 20:35 | history | edited | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 165 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2012 at 16:13 | history | edited | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 467 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2012 at 14:53 | vote | accept | rvarma | ||
| Aug 8, 2012 at 13:57 | comment | added | YCor | The construction is canonical, which indeed implies that the connected unipotent subgroup (or parabolic subgroup) is stable under automorphisms preserving the unipotent $H$, but does this characterize it uniquely? otherwise I wouldn't take this consequence as a definition of "canonical". | |
| Aug 8, 2012 at 9:03 | history | edited | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 279 characters in body; added 81 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2012 at 8:40 | history | answered | user22479 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |