Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

expose -> exposé, while this is on the front page
Source Link
LSpice
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Missing exposesexposés in SGA 5, and the composition of the SGA's

Over the past couple of years I had to look in SGA for various results, and I can't but marvel at how poorly constructed it is. In SGA1 exposeexposé VII "n'existe pas", SGA 1 references higher SGA's, and so forth.

My first, albeit less urgent, question is: how were these composed, and why the many missing exposesexposés and references to future manuscripts? Were all SGA's written simultaneously? Are the missing exposesexposés a product of type-writing it (so changing the table of contents is too much of a bother?). Were they going to write those exposesexposés later but never did? Why didn't they?

My second question is specifically regarding the missing exposesexposés in SGA5. In the introduction to expose XIII in SGA1 it says that it generalizes the results of SGA5 II --— one of the missing exposesexposés! What happened there? Is there a more appropriate reference for what SGA1 exposeexposé XIII generalizes?

Missing exposes in SGA 5, and the composition of the SGA's

Over the past couple of years I had to look in SGA for various results, and I can't but marvel at how poorly constructed it is. In SGA1 expose VII "n'existe pas", SGA 1 references higher SGA's, and so forth.

My first, albeit less urgent, question is: how were these composed, and why the many missing exposes and references to future manuscripts? Were all SGA's written simultaneously? Are the missing exposes a product of type-writing it (so changing the table of contents is too much of a bother?). Were they going to write those exposes later but never did? Why didn't they?

My second question is specifically regarding the missing exposes in SGA5. In the introduction to expose XIII in SGA1 it says that it generalizes the results of SGA5 II -- one of the missing exposes! What happened there? Is there a more appropriate reference for what SGA1 expose XIII generalizes?

Missing exposés in SGA 5, and the composition of the SGA's

Over the past couple of years I had to look in SGA for various results, and I can't but marvel at how poorly constructed it is. In SGA1 exposé VII "n'existe pas", SGA 1 references higher SGA's, and so forth.

My first, albeit less urgent, question is: how were these composed, and why the many missing exposés and references to future manuscripts? Were all SGA's written simultaneously? Are the missing exposés a product of type-writing it (so changing the table of contents is too much of a bother?). Were they going to write those exposés later but never did? Why didn't they?

My second question is specifically regarding the missing exposés in SGA5. In the introduction to expose XIII in SGA1 it says that it generalizes the results of SGA5 II — one of the missing exposés! What happened there? Is there a more appropriate reference for what SGA1 exposé XIII generalizes?

Post Made Community Wiki
Source Link
Makhalan Duff
Makhalan Duff
  • 5.9k
  • 43
  • 80

Missing exposes in SGA 5, and the composition of the SGA's

Over the past couple of years I had to look in SGA for various results, and I can't but marvel at how poorly constructed it is. In SGA1 expose VII "n'existe pas", SGA 1 references higher SGA's, and so forth.

My first, albeit less urgent, question is: how were these composed, and why the many missing exposes and references to future manuscripts? Were all SGA's written simultaneously? Are the missing exposes a product of type-writing it (so changing the table of contents is too much of a bother?). Were they going to write those exposes later but never did? Why didn't they?

My second question is specifically regarding the missing exposes in SGA5. In the introduction to expose XIII in SGA1 it says that it generalizes the results of SGA5 II -- one of the missing exposes! What happened there? Is there a more appropriate reference for what SGA1 expose XIII generalizes?