Timeline for Extra principal Cartier divisors on non-Noetherian rings? (answered: no!)
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2010 at 17:34 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | Georges, thank-you for the fantastic reference! Looks like this topic was really a mess for some time... | |
| Jun 18, 2010 at 2:22 | comment | added | BCnrd | Victor, although each volume of EGA came up with (sometimes long!) errata lists for the previous volumes, by definition errors in the final EGA IV$_4$ never got an errata list. Anyway, the time lag between EGA IV$_4$ and 1979 is closer to 10 years than 20, but my guess is that experts knew this error right away (and it is easy to fix once one notices the issue), and probably Kleiman only got around to publishing something later when he found an actual counterexample. There are certainly other errors in the final volume (as I note in my answer), but all correctable in my experience. | |
| Jun 18, 2010 at 2:10 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | A $\mathit{mistake}$ in EGA? Unnonticed for, what, 20 years? I don't think oy vey is adequate response. Time to drink away the original sin. | |
| Jun 18, 2010 at 1:24 | history | edited | Georges Elencwajg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added colon
|
| Jun 17, 2010 at 23:41 | comment | added | Georges Elencwajg | Dear, hmm, BCnrd (see, I can keep a secret !): although I haven't checked your proof in detail I am impressed, as usual, by your spotting the error in EGA and correcting it independently of the paper I mention. I'm sure it will be a breeze for you to study Kleiman's example and to confirm that it is compatible with your proof. | |
| Jun 17, 2010 at 23:21 | history | edited | Georges Elencwajg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added text starting at: " A gift from ..."
|
| Jun 17, 2010 at 20:38 | history | answered | Georges Elencwajg | CC BY-SA 2.5 |