Timeline for Interpreting Frobenius pullback as an invariant differential in the case of an elliptic curve
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 14, 2015 at 21:53 | history | bounty ended | Lisa S. | ||
| S Apr 14, 2015 at 21:53 | history | notice removed | Lisa S. | ||
| Apr 14, 2015 at 21:52 | vote | accept | Lisa S. | ||
| Apr 13, 2015 at 22:00 | answer | added | Kestutis Cesnavicius | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Apr 13, 2015 at 17:49 | history | bounty started | Lisa S. | ||
| S Apr 13, 2015 at 17:49 | history | notice added | Lisa S. | Draw attention | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 3:01 | comment | added | Lisa S. | @PiotrAchinger: Sorry, I forgot the hypothesis you mention (which is non-essential if one is thinking about everything Zariski locally). Choosing $E = S$ as you suggest doesn't make sense though. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 2:59 | history | edited | Lisa S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 81 characters in body
|
| Apr 11, 2015 at 2:33 | comment | added | Piotr Achinger | Is $S$ affine? / Shouldn't $H^1(E, \mathcal{O}_E)$ be $R^1 f_* \mathcal{O}_E$? If $E=S$, we should have ${\rm Lie}(E/S)=0$... | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 2:29 | history | asked | Lisa S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |