Timeline for A question about Kato's explicit reciprocity law

8 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Apr 9, 2018 at 7:47	answer	added	Laurent Berger		timeline score: 2
Apr 8, 2018 at 16:17	history	edited	GRH	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 41 characters in body
Apr 8, 2018 at 16:11	comment	added	GRH		Thanks for pointing out the typos. In the special case of $V=K(\chi_{\pi})$, as in Thm 3.4.5, $y=f(T)\otimes{t_{\pi}^{-1}u}$ and $\nabla(y)=\partial{f(T)}u$. Doesn't the fact $h_{F_n,V}^1(\partial {f(T)}u)=(q/\pi)^{-n}\delta(x_n)$ and the general construction of ${h_{F_n,-}}$ implies that $h_{F_n, V(\chi_\pi^j)}(\partial{f(T)}u\otimes{e_j})$ is the twist (a la Soule) of $(q/\pi)^{-n}\delta(x_n)$ by $\chi^j_{\pi}$?
Apr 8, 2018 at 15:58	history	edited	GRH	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 12 characters in body
Apr 8, 2018 at 12:07	comment	added	Laurent Berger		Thm 3.5.3 does not quite say what you wrote ($f$ should be $y$ on the RHS, and there are missing parts). In particular there is a $h^1_{F_n,V(\chi_\pi^j)}$ whose value, on the LHS, won't depend just on the values of $f$ at the $u_n$ but, as the thm says, on the values of its $-j$-th derivative.
Apr 8, 2018 at 8:50	history	edited	GRH	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 107 characters in body
Apr 8, 2018 at 8:06	comment	added	Chris Wuthrich		If you are not willing to explain more what the notation means you have to include at the very least a link to the paper.
Apr 7, 2018 at 23:15	history	asked	GRH	CC BY-SA 3.0