Timeline for Do we have $\underline{\operatorname{Ext}}^i_\text{fppf}(\mathbb{G}_a,\mathbb{G}_m)=0$ for $i>0$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2023 at 8:41 | history | edited | Gabriel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed the formal additive group part to make it into another question
|
| Apr 15, 2023 at 14:07 | vote | accept | Gabriel | ||
| Apr 13, 2023 at 22:31 | answer | added | Exit path | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 13, 2023 at 16:52 | comment | added | LSpice |
Re, because \textsf is semantically for use in text and \mathsf is semantically for use in math. Of course in MathJax (as opposed to TeX) the distinction is otiose, and may even result in identical rendering (I don't know), but I figured it was better to be semantically correct while I was adding the links. But, if you don't like it, then feel free to revert (although hopefully leaving the links), and please accept my apologies for an unwanted edit.
|
|
| Apr 13, 2023 at 16:49 | comment | added | Gabriel | Dear @LSpice, do you mind explaining why you changed the \textsf to \mathsf? | |
| Apr 13, 2023 at 16:39 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Links to articles
|
| Apr 13, 2023 at 16:05 | history | asked | Gabriel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |