Timeline for Why does K-theory need schemes to be Noetherian?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2019 at 22:36 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | @DavidRoberts Thanks for the link. And I can't believe I forgot "higher" in the title... | |
| Nov 21, 2019 at 22:36 | history | edited | Denis Nardin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link and corrected title
|
| Nov 21, 2019 at 22:30 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | T&T is available as a pdf from Rainicki's archive. And the title is Higher algebraic K-theory of schemes .... | |
| Nov 21, 2019 at 21:49 | history | edited | Denis Nardin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected missing hypothesis
|
| Nov 21, 2019 at 18:39 | vote | accept | Li Guanyu | ||
| Nov 19, 2019 at 9:40 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | @ACL Essentially,algebraic K-theory is much better studied using (∞,1)-categories.Probably the standard references here are Blumberg-Gepner-Tabuada'sA universal characterization of higher algebraic K-theory and Barwick's On the K-theory of higher categories,but there's plenty of material (cfr. the recent paper by Land and Tamme on excision, or the work by Clausen,Mathew,Naumann,Noel for some stricking applications which are probably more accessible),and this is without mentioning motivic homotopy theory | |
| Nov 19, 2019 at 9:36 | comment | added | ACL | Denis, can you comment this sentence : “although if you want to invest some time learning some modern homotopy theory can only be beneficial -- many of the proofs in Thomason-Trobaugh can be simplified if you have more modern technology at your disposal” ? Could you give hints or references ? Thanks. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 22:21 | history | answered | Denis Nardin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |