Timeline for What is the insight of Quillen's proof that all projective modules over a polynomial ring are free?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2022 at 13:48 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Name of Quillen's article, while this is on the front page
|
| May 3, 2022 at 8:01 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
broken link fixed
|
| Mar 11, 2014 at 21:09 | comment | added | Al-Amrani | Serre himself does not like to call it a conjecture, but simply a problem (Why ?). Now, why Suslin's solution of the problem is not considered (in comments above or answers below ) and compared to Quillen's one ? This would be of great help, and meaningful, in understanding how fancy (or not !) machineries grow up to solve problems. | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 5:58 | comment | added | David Feldman | T Y Lam has a book on the subject. Two actually. He's a first-class expositor. | |
| Nov 23, 2010 at 13:15 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
typo
|
| Mar 29, 2010 at 0:43 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | No worries. It's entirely true that I should have looked at Wikipedia, but I don't think my question is one that was actually addressed there, so I don't feel too bad about it. The only real problem was deciding which of the two very nice answers to accept. | |
| Mar 29, 2010 at 0:41 | vote | accept | Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Mar 29, 2010 at 0:41 | vote | accept | Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Mar 29, 2010 at 0:41 | |||||
| Mar 28, 2010 at 21:56 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Ben: having reread my comment it probably comes across as snippier than I'd intended; sorry if it was glib. In any case, I think Hailong and Lieven's answers seem to show that your question was a worthwhile one. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 16:51 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I didn't think to look at the Wikipedia page, which obviously I should have, but it basically just links to the original papers. Leaving out Suslin was really just a matter of me not knowing. My recollection had been that Serre had proved the theorem, not that he had asked the question, until did a little Googling and found Quillen's paper. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 16:48 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Mar 28, 2010 at 9:12 | answer | added | Hailong Dao | timeline score: 61 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 8:07 | answer | added | lieven lebruyn | timeline score: 56 | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 7:03 | comment | added | Robin Chapman | Vaserstein gave a more elementary proof of the Quillen-Suslin theorem. This was included in the second and third editions of Lang's Algebra. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 6:19 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I also have a dim memory of some discussion of this in Rotman's book on homological algebra, but I can't remember the details unfortunately | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 5:16 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Bit surprised not to see Suslin's name get appended. Does the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillen%E2%80%93Suslin_theorem give pointers to helpful literature, or are those sources just repeating what you already outlined in your post? | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 5:14 | comment | added | 7-adic | It is said that there is an elementary proof years later. | |
| Mar 28, 2010 at 4:30 | history | asked | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |