Timeline for Is it true that simple projective modules are injective?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2013 at 1:00 | comment | added | Floresza | Though a few added details are never a bad thing :) | |
| Oct 22, 2013 at 0:59 | comment | added | Floresza | Yes, it is! Hah, alas, I guess that's what you get when rushing through things. | |
| Oct 21, 2013 at 21:25 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Once corrected, this is exactly the same as what I did, no? :-) | |
| Oct 21, 2013 at 20:32 | history | edited | Floresza | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 235 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2013 at 20:24 | history | edited | Floresza | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 235 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2013 at 19:49 | history | edited | Floresza | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2013 at 14:18 | comment | added | Torsten Schoeneberg | Not quite true, $\mathfrak{m}= 0$ does not follow. The ring just has to contain a field as a direct factor, as per Mariano's answer. | |
| Oct 9, 2013 at 17:38 | history | answered | Floresza | CC BY-SA 3.0 |