Skip to main content

Timeline for A-valued points of projective space

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 24, 2021 at 10:15 comment added Watson See also math.stackexchange.com/questions/1064778/…
Oct 30, 2018 at 18:53 comment added Watson Exercise 3.19 in Görtz–Wedhorn (suitably modified as indicated in this erratum) requires the ring $A$ to be local, at least.
S Nov 16, 2010 at 13:57 vote accept C S
S Nov 16, 2010 at 13:57 vote accept C S
S Nov 16, 2010 at 13:57
Nov 16, 2010 at 13:56 answer added C S timeline score: 1
Nov 16, 2010 at 9:24 vote accept C S
S Nov 16, 2010 at 13:57
Nov 16, 2010 at 9:24 vote accept C S
Nov 16, 2010 at 9:24
Nov 16, 2010 at 2:20 answer added VA. timeline score: 12
Nov 15, 2010 at 19:05 comment added Dave Anderson A warning tangentially relevant to the question: around the same part of that book, they attempt to define Proj(F) for a coherent sheaf F in terms of "prime ideal sheaves." There's some fishy stuff going on there, and I think the lesson is that one should not try to define things that way: read Hartshorne (or EGA) for this instead.
Nov 15, 2010 at 18:03 answer added user10849 timeline score: 3
Nov 15, 2010 at 15:01 comment added BCnrd Yes, non-trivial line bundles on Spec($A$) which admit $n+1$ generators provide "additional" Spec($A$)-valued points of projective $n$-space $\mathbf{P}^n_{\mathbf{Z}}$. The same issue comes up when describing $C^{\infty}$-maps from smooth manifolds to real projective $n$-space (using $C^{\infty}$-line bundles), holomorphic maps from complex manifolds to complex projective $n$-space (using holomorphic line bundles), and continuous maps from topological spaces to real (resp. complex) projective $n$-space (using real (resp. complex) topological line bundles), so it's not specific to schemes.
Nov 15, 2010 at 14:52 history asked C S CC BY-SA 2.5