Timeline for A nice variety without a smooth model
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jan 10, 2010 at 11:45 | vote | accept | Chandan Singh Dalawat | ||
| Jan 10, 2010 at 9:04 | answer | added | user19475 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 10, 2010 at 8:54 | answer | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 4, 2010 at 8:20 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | @Minhyong : Ah! You mean a curve of genus >1 which has bad reduction but whose jacobian has good reduction. Thanks for reminding me. Auld lang syne! | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 10:55 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | Hi Chandan! I'm a bit too lazy for a proper discussion, but were you somehow excluding a curve with tree-like reduction from your considerations? I'm sure you know that example better than I do. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 5:14 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | When X is viewed as a Z_p-scheme, is it smooth ? But you are right, I want X to have "good reduction" in the sense of being the generic fibre of a smooth proper Z_p-scheme. Notice that every abelian Q_p-variety is the generic fibre of a smooth Z_p-scheme (for example its néronian model) but it is the generic fibre of a smooth proper Z_p-scheme only when the néronian model is an abelian scheme. | |
| Jan 3, 2010 at 5:04 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Changed "smooth" to "smooth proper".
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 3:45 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Reverted back to "smooth" in place of "smooth proper flat".
|
| Jan 3, 2010 at 3:09 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Changed "smooth" to "smooth proper flat".
|
| Jan 2, 2010 at 18:02 | comment | added | JBorger | Pedantic point: You should require that X is not the generic fiber of a smooth proper Z_p-scheme, or make some similar change, because X is always the generic fiber of itself, viewed as a Z_p-scheme rather than a Q_p-scheme. | |
| Jan 2, 2010 at 5:19 | history | edited | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Jan 2, 2010 at 4:54 | history | asked | Chandan Singh Dalawat | CC BY-SA 2.5 |