Timeline for Is Hartshorne's definition of associated points correct in the non-noetherian setting?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2022 at 3:55 | vote | accept | Ben C | ||
| May 1, 2022 at 3:55 | vote | accept | Ben C | ||
| May 1, 2022 at 3:55 | |||||
| May 1, 2022 at 3:55 | vote | accept | Ben C | ||
| May 1, 2022 at 3:55 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2022 at 22:05 | answer | added | 351910953 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 17:47 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | It seems that Hartshorne only applies this definition in the case of Noetherian schemes, but you're right that this should probably have been stated in the definition. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 15:51 | history | asked | Ben C | CC BY-SA 4.0 |