Timeline for Criterion for normality of a schematic image
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 11:20 | comment | added | Giulio | here mathoverflow.net/questions/76815/… there is a comment "It is obvious that if the fibers are reduced and connected then the variety is normal. In your case the fibers are obviously not reduced. – Alexander Braverman S" | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 14:52 | comment | added | meh | the point is that "fibers reduced and irreducible then the image is normal' is false. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 7:33 | comment | added | Giulio | In the post you suggested, the author says something like: "if the fibres are reduced and irreducible, then the image of f is normal". Why is this true?? | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 7:18 | history | edited | Giulio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2014 at 7:15 | comment | added | Giulio | so, let's take $f$ flat. I will edit the question | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 2:01 | comment | added | meh | If you look at mathoverflow.net/questions/76815/… I think it is likely that your hopes will be dashed. In essence, unless $f$ is flat, it's unlikely that there can be any criteria | |
| Dec 15, 2014 at 19:44 | history | asked | Giulio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |