Timeline for Can the Category of Schemes be Concretized?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1 at 14:07 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Thanks for the clarification. I overlooked something yesterday, in particular Tom's answer. The present answer is fine. Sorry for the false alarm. | |
| Nov 1 at 14:05 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Tim Campion's answer outlines all of these points, and would probably be the best answer to consider as the accepted answer. It looks like the OP hasn't been on the site since 2010 though, so I don't think there is a way to change that. @MartinBrandenburg | |
| Nov 1 at 2:27 | comment | added | David E Speyer | This is an old question, so I don't remember everything but it looks to me like Zhen Lin shows that Sch is concretizable, Tom Leinester argues that this is the wrong notion to consider, and the right one is whether Sch is "small-concrete", and my answer shows that Sch is not "small-concrete", as defined in Tom's answer. So I don't think my first sentence is false. (I like to think none of them are false. We'll see!) But it does seem odd to have this as the selected answer; Zhen Lin's is more directly to the point. | |
| Nov 1 at 0:24 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | I am not sure why this is the accepted answer. The first sentence is wrong. The post shows that there is no small generating set. This is a different question. I may edit, but please can I get a confirmation? | |
| Sep 6, 2013 at 9:02 | history | edited | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 222 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2009 at 2:35 | vote | accept | Dinakar Muthiah | ||
| Oct 26, 2009 at 13:33 | history | edited | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Oct 26, 2009 at 12:24 | comment | added | Peter Arndt | Should the second U in the second sentence be an S ? | |
| Oct 26, 2009 at 10:59 | history | answered | David E Speyer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |