Timeline for Notation for the automorphisms of a $S$-scheme over automorphisms of $S$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2018 at 12:03 | vote | accept | thierry stulemeijer | ||
| Mar 12, 2017 at 23:26 | comment | added | thierry stulemeijer | @Thomas That's an interesting suggestion, but it would then force me to always name the structural map $G\to \mathrm{Spec}(k)$, which would be too heavy. | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | HeinrichD | @ThomasPoguntke: Probably most readers will associate $s$ with an object of the category of $S$-schemes, not the arrow category of the category of schemes. Hence this category should appear in the index, as suggested by R. van Dobben de Bruyn. | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 14:19 | answer | added | Mikhail Borovoi | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 11, 2017 at 0:56 | comment | added | Thomas Poguntke | $\operatorname{Aut}(s)$? | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 13:45 | comment | added | YCor | No, $G\to Spec(k)$ is fine. $G\to k$ sounds like whatever kind of arrow from $G$ to $k$, which is not the case. | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 9:50 | comment | added | thierry stulemeijer | Thank you for your comments. @YCor , I really don't get why a notation including "$G\to k$" would be misleading. Is a notation including "$G\to \mathrm{Spec}(k)$" less misleading ? | |
| Mar 10, 2017 at 3:08 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | You could also write $\operatorname{Aut}_{\operatorname{\underline{Sch}}^{\to}}(G \to \operatorname{Spec} k)$, but it might not be sufficiently standard that people immediately recognise it... | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | YCor | Any notation including "$G\to k$" would be misleading. | |
| Mar 9, 2017 at 16:14 | history | asked | thierry stulemeijer | CC BY-SA 3.0 |