Timeline for cohomology theory for algebraic groups
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2021 at 20:29 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | The theorem in Parshall's paper giving the identifying the cohomologies of $G_{\text{abs}}$ and $G_{\text{gen}}$ is for groups defined over fields of positive characteristic. Is the result true in characteristic zero? | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 23:40 | history | edited | David Stewart | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 98 characters in body
|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 23:36 | comment | added | David Stewart | @WilberdvanderKallen Aha. Yes. Somehow I have found that paper in my collection and it is Theorem 4(d). (And the argument is, as claimed, attributed to someone called van der Kallen.) | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 14:48 | comment | added | Wilberd van der Kallen | @David_Stuart The paper by Brian is called "Cohomology of Algebraic groups" and it explains that generic cohomology of a finite dimensional module equals discrete cohomology because the projective limit satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 14:01 | comment | added | Wilberd van der Kallen | @David_Stuart. Am I missing a projective limit? Is the argument of van der Kallen that this is the kind of limit that is treated by J. E. Roos in LNM 92, Berlin 1969 ? | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 13:42 | comment | added | David Stewart | @WilberdvanderKallen, because---and I got this from the horses' mouths, if Brian and Len do not mind being compared to horses---in your 1977 paper you do not prove that abstract cohomology and generic cohomology are the same. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 7:02 | comment | added | Wilberd van der Kallen | Why refer to something that is difficult to get hold of? Just refer to our 1977 Inventiones paper which was a joint paper for good reasons. | |
| Sep 22, 2015 at 23:42 | history | answered | David Stewart | CC BY-SA 3.0 |