Timeline for Locally profinite fields ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2010 at 9:33 | comment | added | Jared Weinstein | Point well taken. By no means is it necessarily a bad phrase. I only meant that there could be some ambiguity in how the phrase is interpreted (whereas there is much precedent for "locally compact group"). | |
| Mar 4, 2010 at 9:25 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | I'm not advocating the use of the expression "locally profinite field" without any explanation. You will need to define the notion and prove that fields in 1) are the only ones which qualify. My question is about the linguistic merits of the expression. | |
| Mar 4, 2010 at 9:17 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | A "locally profinite field" sounds like it should admit an open profinite subfield, A locally compact field does not admit an open compact subfield... | |
| Mar 4, 2010 at 9:06 | history | answered | Jared Weinstein | CC BY-SA 2.5 |