Timeline for Maximality of connected components of finite flat group schemes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2015 at 0:31 | comment | added | nfdc23 | @LaurentMoret-Bailly: Yes, I agree with you. In the setting over a finite flat group scheme over a henselian local ring I believe the (abuse of) notation $G^0$ to mean the literal connected component of the identity section rather than the SGA3 notion is often used as a convention, such as going back to Tate's paper on p-divisible groups. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 7:42 | comment | added | Laurent Moret-Bailly | @nfdc23: OK, so doesn't have connected fibers in general. In SGA, the notation $G^0$ for a group scheme $G$ is used for the "scheme of identity components of fibers" whenever that exists. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 22:11 | comment | added | nfdc23 | @LaurentMoret-Bailly: By $\mathscr{V}^0$ I believe XYZ means the connected component of the identity section; this is a good notion over a henselian local base, as you know. In what way does it "not make sense" for the setting of the question posed? | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Laurent Moret-Bailly | In general, $\mathscr{V}^0$ doesn't make sense. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 19:33 | answer | added | nfdc23 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 13:48 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 17, 2015 at 13:49 | |||||
| Nov 17, 2015 at 13:45 | history | asked | XYZ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |