Timeline for Non-representable functor, representable on locally Noetherian schemes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:53 | vote | accept | jlk | ||
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:51 | answer | added | BCnrd | timeline score: 18 | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:42 | comment | added | BCnrd | Daniel, those are purely expository restrictions. By imposing suitable "finite presentation" conditions that are automatic in the locally noetherian case, all noetherian hypotheses are eliminated (ultimately by reduction to proving that the representing object in noetherian cases actually works on the larger category). | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:35 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | I suppose an analogy with algebraic topology would be a classifying space BG for bundles on paracompact spaces, but which isn't classifying for all spaces. I'm imagining there might be a moduli problem such that there is a locally Noeth. moduli scheme that is analogous to the alg. top. case. But I'm not an algebraic geometer. | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:32 | comment | added | Daniel Litt | Quot might work--as I recall, the Grothendieck construction restricts to the locally Noetherian category. Off the top of my head, however, I can't prove that Quot isn't representable over $\mathbb{C}$-Sch. | |
| Nov 2, 2010 at 4:20 | history | asked | jlk | CC BY-SA 2.5 |