Timeline for How to understand the "boundary" of subscheme, as defined in "An elementary characterisation of Krull dimension"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 8:08 | answer | added | Neil Strickland | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 20:31 | comment | added | Somatic Custard | @HarryGindi I got a sense that something like this was the case, from the first reference, but I'm not used to thinking about lattices and partial orders, so I didn't gain much from this. I know a la here this captures most of Zariski topology, but somehow that doesn't console me. | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 20:25 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | The sense in which these are 'boundaries' is purely order-theoretic (with respect to the specialization ordering on the spectrum), if that helps. I suggest working this out in the case where R is a valuation ring. | |
| Jun 15, 2020 at 20:17 | history | edited | Somatic Custard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added another remark about regular sequences.
|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 14:37 | answer | added | Neil Epstein | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 14, 2020 at 22:19 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Names of "these references"; minor TeX
|
| Jun 14, 2020 at 22:14 | history | asked | Somatic Custard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |