Timeline for An unfamiliar (to me) form of Hensel's Lemma
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2010 at 15:56 | history | edited | Tom LaGatta |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 18, 2010 at 13:53 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Everyone: in case it was not apparent, this was a rather embarrassing question to ask: I should have worked this out myself, but I wanted a quick answer for my students' sake. In fact I got, in addition to exactly the information I wanted/needed, lots of other interesting stuff. The moral of the story is....what is it, exactly? You can use MO to help teach your graduate courses? :) | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 11:45 | answer | added | Wanderer | timeline score: 20 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 9:09 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 8:16 | vote | accept | Pete L. Clark | ||
| Feb 18, 2010 at 7:48 | answer | added | Jérôme Poineau | timeline score: 16 | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 6:45 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Harry Gindi: Sorry, I'm not going to play the disappearing comments game with you tonight. Please give an answer if you have one. | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 6:33 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Harry: if $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ is a valuation ring, it is $\mathfrak{m}$-adically separated iff it is Noetherian iff it is a DVR. So your first claim is not correct. It is true that Henselianity can be characterized in terms of etale morphisms (Milne, Etale Cohomology, Section 1.4), but what does this have to do with the Hensel-Kurschak Lemma? | |
| Feb 18, 2010 at 5:56 | history | asked | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |