Timeline for Why is the prime spectrum not useful in non-archimedean analytic geometry?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2010 at 9:54 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=5117 by developer User.Id=36770 | |
| Apr 20, 2010 at 9:58 | comment | added | user5117 | Dear Kevin, this answer is also very enlightening. It makes precise the vague idea I had that MaxSpec is a better object in this setting than in algebraic geometry. | |
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:30 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Heh, hi Brian. I'm sure you put it as early as possible in the notes! Yes I appreciate that in your current incarnation you are limited to 500 chars :-) | |
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:30 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Fair point Emerton. I just thought it was a bit strange that Brian seemed to be justifying it by saying "it works for varieties, so why shouldn't it work for rigid spaces?", whereas somehow he didn't say the reason it worked for varieties! I think his point that one can make sense of |f(x)| is a good one though, and somehow "independent" of this issue. | |
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:29 | comment | added | BCnrd | Kevin, there's only so much room in these comment boxes. :) Anyway, Emerton is right, and I'd hoped the OP had at least read section 1.1 of my notes, which mention what you say, to make up for it. But for wider MO purposes, it's good that you put up that post. If I'd ever bothered to register, I'd give you +1. | |
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:26 | comment | added | Emerton | Dear Kevin, I think this was implicit in Brian's remark that MaxSpec is not a waste of time, following on from his allusion to classical varieties. Good to spell it out, though! | |
| Apr 19, 2010 at 19:14 | history | answered | Kevin Buzzard | CC BY-SA 2.5 |