Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 13, 2019 at 4:59 vote accept Praphulla Koushik
Feb 13, 2019 at 4:59 comment added Praphulla Koushik Yes, I see why they are submersion,, first reason I realise why $s,t$ is submersion is to make sure $\mathcal{G}_1\times_{\mathcal{G}_0}\mathcal{G}_1$ is a manifold (pullback is a manifold if one of the maps is submersions) so that you can talk about multiplication/composition map being smooth... after this also many times I used source/target map are submersions so that pullback is manifold... I do not know much about Deligne Mumford stacks and all that.. may be some day I will know and this answer might be useful... thanks :)
Feb 13, 2019 at 4:26 comment added David Roberts Well, I answered a different question, namely why should they be submersions, and that information is worth leaving there.
Feb 13, 2019 at 3:42 comment added Praphulla Koushik This does not deserve to be a question on MO or question on anywhere... it is not a misconception it is just because of my sleepy feeling... of course I do know that source and target maps are surjective,,, what should I do now?? Should I just delete it ?
Feb 13, 2019 at 3:31 comment added Praphulla Koushik I was also rechecking the definition in arxiv.org/pdf/math/0203100.pdf and it says it is just submersion :D :D It is already surjective so they just did not mention :P :P
Feb 13, 2019 at 3:27 comment added Praphulla Koushik Ofcourse they are surjective... Given $a\in \mathcal{G}_0$ I can just take $1_a:a\rightarrow a$ in $\mathcal{G}_0$ that says both $s,t$ are surjective... It was asked 5 hours ago i.e., 4 am for me.. I should have just slept off.. My mind did not work and I did not realise that then... I now feel like real stupid :D Sorry for wasting your time.. I feel guilty....
Feb 13, 2019 at 1:35 history edited David Roberts CC BY-SA 4.0
added 252 characters in body
Feb 13, 2019 at 1:29 history answered David Roberts CC BY-SA 4.0