Timeline for Are $\mathbb{C}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ isomorphic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2016 at 20:26 | history | edited | cody | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed small math formatting typo (\_{\ell} -> _{\ell})
|
| May 3, 2010 at 2:54 | history | edited | Emerton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1688 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2010 at 20:50 | comment | added | BCnrd | Matt, the situation is as you say after Deligne's proof is done, but during the proof we don't know the algebraicity, so the framework of Weil sheaves and their twistings using possibly non-algebraic numbers is important in the method. That's why I pointed out in my comment that only countably many such numbers actually come up in the proof (due to countability of set of closed points), so even for the proof itself only a countably generated subfield of C intervenes. Last year when Akshay and I did a student seminar on Weil II he hoped it could be avoided, but by the end he agreed with me. | |
| May 2, 2010 at 20:21 | comment | added | Minhyong Kim | Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by meaningless. It sounds like you and a number of other people agree with Deligne, that is, to be happy with the isomorphism in situations where you can do without it. Is this correct? (On the other hand, you say you're fine with AC, in which case I suppose you should be happy with the isomorphism regardless of the situation.) | |
| May 2, 2010 at 19:07 | history | answered | Emerton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |