Timeline for $\mathbb{G}_m$-torsors and line bundles
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2016 at 18:00 | comment | added | stupid_question_bot | About the underlines - perhaps it's most striking in the statement of the two Propositions on p197. | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 17:24 | comment | added | stupid_question_bot | Also, what is an "affine algebraic scheme" (p183, near bottom, p184,185...)? Is it just an affine scheme? I can't seem to find the definition anywhere... I apologize for these questions. It's just difficult navigating a book using an unfamiliar language for the first time, and since you seem to be familiar with it, I thought I'd just ask you... | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 17:09 | comment | added | stupid_question_bot | In the book by Demazure, he sometimes writes functors with underlines, and sometimes not. For example in II, $\S 1$, no 2, 2.8 ("Diagonalizable Groups, end of page 190 and beginning of p191), he writes $\underline{D}(\Gamma)$, and later at the top of p191 he writes $D(\Gamma)$. They both seem like just functors from Rings to Sets. Is there a distinction? | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 7:20 | comment | added | HeinrichD | @rtz: No, consider $R=0$ for instance. But I think that 2. is implied by 1. and 3. | |
| Nov 8, 2016 at 3:09 | vote | accept | stupid_question_bot | ||
| S Nov 7, 2016 at 22:15 | history | suggested | stupid_question_bot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed some typos, added more details
|
| Nov 7, 2016 at 21:54 | comment | added | stupid_question_bot | Am I right in saying that property (3) implies the others? | |
| Nov 7, 2016 at 21:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 7, 2016 at 22:15 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2016 at 8:58 | history | edited | HeinrichD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 7, 2016 at 8:52 | history | answered | HeinrichD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |