Timeline for Can Deligne-Mumford stacks be characterized by their restriction to a small subcategory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2010 at 8:32 | history | edited | expz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Fixed superfluous h
|
| Oct 9, 2010 at 8:23 | vote | accept | expz | ||
| Oct 7, 2010 at 18:59 | answer | added | Anatoly Preygel | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 18:40 | comment | added | expz | Is it easy to show it's not true even for a scheme? @unknown: In general, no, I don't think you can assume the topology, though I could be mistaken. My cue is from Behrend-Manin defining the stack of stable maps when they call it DM and use the fppf topology. | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 17:22 | comment | added | Qfwfq | If I'm not mistaken, Deligne-Mumford stacks are, by definition, stacks w.r.t. the étale topology, not fppf. | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 16:52 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | What does $Xh$ mean? | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 16:15 | history | asked | expz | CC BY-SA 2.5 |