Timeline for current status of crystalline cohomology?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 23:06 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 236 characters in body
|
| Apr 16, 2013 at 8:28 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 284 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2012 at 19:58 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 330 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2011 at 8:31 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 250 characters in body
|
| Oct 25, 2011 at 10:06 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 212 characters in body; Post Made Community Wiki
|
| Jun 16, 2011 at 20:26 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 317 characters in body
|
| Apr 25, 2011 at 19:05 | comment | added | Thomas Riepe | ... what makes it even more interesting! In view of Grothendieck's stress on "simplicity", I wonder where that "complicatedness" is located and what it may indicate. | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 17:00 | comment | added | JSE | I think crystalline cohomology's current status is "It's complicated." | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 11:04 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 284 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2010 at 13:20 | comment | added | CJD | Regarding the "overconvergent de Rham-Witt cohomology" comments, you can try looking at the two preprints on Thomas Zink's homepage which have "overconvergent" in the title. The thesis David mentions isn't going to be published; its results are contained in joint work with Langer and Zink. | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 8:23 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 318 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2010 at 8:48 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark |
added tag (characteristic p)
|
|
| Jan 15, 2010 at 8:08 | comment | added | David Zureick-Brown | Overconvergent de Rham-Witt cohomology is Chris Davis's thesis, which hasn't appeared in publication yet. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 18:56 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 8:49 | comment | added | Thomas Riepe | Thanks! I had overseen it. But Kiran Kedlaya tells that he discusses only some of the current main themes, and probably exiting new work, e.g. on "overconvergent de Rham-Witt cohomology" (what's that?) has been done after 2006. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 15:25 | comment | added | dke | It's probably worth pointing to Kiran Kedlaya's survey paper arxiv.org/abs/math/0601507 which sets out to do exactly what you ask ie give an update to Illusie's survey. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 13:52 | answer | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | timeline score: 41 | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 13:25 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2010 at 12:53 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2010 at 12:39 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Jan 13, 2010 at 12:32 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | I think "Chambert-Lior" is Chambert-Loir. | |
| Jan 13, 2010 at 12:14 | history | edited | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 107 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2010 at 11:42 | history | asked | Thomas Riepe | CC BY-SA 2.5 |