Timeline for Are group schemes in Char 0 reduced? (YES)
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2010 at 4:36 | history | edited | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 452 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2010 at 19:24 | history | edited | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 3 characters in body; edited title; edited body
|
| Apr 26, 2010 at 17:40 | vote | accept | jlk | ||
| Apr 26, 2010 at 13:28 | comment | added | BCnrd | @jlk: You're right that the argument I gave works in the locally noetherian case. But it all is moot in view of Perrin's thesis in LRG's answer. | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 7:59 | answer | added | LRG | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 5:29 | history | edited | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 477 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2010 at 4:19 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | For the record, I have so far very much enjoyed your ramblings! :) | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 4:16 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | @BCnrd: Alright, I changed it. | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 4:05 | comment | added | BCnrd | @Mariano: sorry, I realize it can be a puzzle, and that for those whose native language is not English it can be a problem. But it is better for me that I live within the confines of comment space restrictions, as I will ramble on for too much o/w. A big cause of it sometimes (not always) is that the space counter for comments treats things like \mathbf{Q} as 10 characters when takes up only 1 space in output! Now that would be wondrful to fix; not sure how. Hmm, I guess sometimes I should use 2 comment boxes. I enjyd th pzzl dcphrng yr cmmnt, btw. @Harry: please use BCnrd, for consistency. | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 3:23 | comment | added | Cam McLeman | I find that I enjoy the placement-of-vowels exercise that is left to the reader. :) | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 3:09 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | By the way, BCnrd, would you prefer that I quote you as BCnrd or Brian Conrad? | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 3:05 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I posted the comment community-wiki style with vowels added back in! | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 3:04 | answer | added | Harry Gindi | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 3:03 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | BCnrd, Im srry t sy tht Im strting to hv pbs rding u! :/ | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 2:51 | comment | added | BCnrd | Every gp scheme over field is sep'td: ratl pts are closed immersions, and diag is base change of id. section. Also, conn'd gp lft over field k is f.t. (use geometric conn'dness and pass to kbar), whence smooth for char 0 in lft case. (Pf of Cartier's thm works in lft case over field of char. 0, so this reasoning is silly.) Any noetherian gp scheme over fld of char. 0 is formally smooth: completion at 1 is formal gp of finite dim, and Cartier's pf works in formal case (use formal Lie theory w/o smoothness hypothesis!) or use Thm 3.3ff Exp. VII SGA3. Then translate and extend base field. QED | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 2:39 | history | edited | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 198 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2010 at 2:27 | history | asked | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |