Timeline for Formally étale at all primes does not imply formally étale?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2015 at 10:07 | history | edited | jmc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fix LaTeX
|
| Mar 11, 2010 at 19:51 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Anton Geraschenko | ||
| Mar 11, 2010 at 2:49 | comment | added | BCnrd | This is very nice, though since at the end you pass to a localization (so no longer quite working with a "presentation" as an $R$-algebra anymore), I think it is better if before you launch into the calculation you generalize the setup to allow $S$ to more generally be a localization of $R[X]/I$ at some unspecified multiplicative set (so can then ramp it up to the complement of a prime later in the argument without departing from the initial setup of the argument). The usual business of stating hypotheses in sufficient generality for what comes later in the proof. Just stylistic... | |
| Mar 10, 2010 at 23:48 | history | edited | Harry Gindi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 22 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2010 at 23:43 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | I recommend using \overline instead of \bar. | |
| Mar 10, 2010 at 23:09 | history | answered | Harry Gindi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |