Timeline for Using a known result without a specific reference
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1 at 21:46 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Nov 30, 2017 at 3:32 | vote | accept | benblumsmith | ||
| Nov 30, 2017 at 2:16 | comment | added | benblumsmith | @darijgrinberg - I meant that I was contemplating using the results in the paper without giving references for them. I've changed the title to "using" accordingly. Hopefully this solves that issue? | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 2:15 | history | edited | benblumsmith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 29, 2017 at 0:16 | answer | added | Kimball | timeline score: 13 | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 20:54 | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 17 | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 20:45 | comment | added | nfdc23 | For (1) you could give as a reference [EGA IV$_2$, 4.1.4] (and [EGA IV$_3$, 9.2.6.1] depending on what class of fibers you intend to check the fibral dimension), though if you intend (1) to entail equidimensional fibers then this should be made clear and a suitable reference is [EGA IV$_3$, 9.9.3(ii)]. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 20:27 | comment | added | nfdc23 | Both (1) and (2) are definitely "common knowledge" for practicing algebraic geometers, so (as John Pardon notes in his comment) if you state such a fact when being used then it doesn't seem necessary to give a reference for its proof. The main issue with giving references to virtual rather than printed sources is that the numerical label might change (say for Vakil's notes, and if you weren't to use the Tag system for the Stacks Project). Note also that in Vakil's notes your (1) is an Exercise (currently 24.5.K), so it is "bad" to use that as a reference (as Pace Nielsen notes). | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 20:12 | answer | added | Pace Nielsen | timeline score: 16 | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 19:49 | comment | added | darij grinberg | The title of the question makes no sense. Vakil's FOAG and Stacks are specific references. If you mean "printed", say "printed"! | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 19:25 | answer | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | timeline score: 24 | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | yes, I think so. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:33 | comment | added | benblumsmith | @DimaPasechnik - are you saying you consider it good form to cite them in a paper? | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:20 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | I would not worry too much about this. E.g. Stacks Project is probably much better peer-reviewed than an average paper, and same applies to Ravi Vakil's lecture notes... | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:04 | history | asked | benblumsmith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |