Timeline for Unique decomposition of locally free sheaf
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2014 at 11:39 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 8, 2014 at 11:05 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 8, 2014 at 11:38 | |||||
| May 8, 2014 at 10:39 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 169 characters in body
|
| May 8, 2014 at 10:21 | comment | added | Sasha | Any direct summand of a locally free sheaf is saturated (since the quotient is the other direct summand which is automatically locally free). | |
| May 8, 2014 at 10:11 | comment | added | user39380 | Thanks for your reference! But I am a bit confusing that here indecomposible is defined by direct sum of saturated subsheaves while in the article it only asked decomposible as direct sum of subsheaves? So I think a sheaf indecomposible here may not be indecomposible in the sense in the article. | |
| May 8, 2014 at 9:52 | history | answered | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |