Timeline for An (almost) terminological question: could one shorten the phrase 'the spectrum of the residue field of a point'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2010 at 16:32 | comment | added | Angelo | Dear Mikhail, I don't know if it usual, but I do it all the time, and people seem to get it. I certainly would not identify a point with its closure, which is not a very pointlike object. | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 16:28 | comment | added | Mikhail Bondarko | Dear Angelo, I thought about "the point"; yet is it natural (and usual) to identify the point with the spectrum of the residue field and not with the corresponding closed subscheme? | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 11:18 | comment | added | Chandan Singh Dalawat | The residual spectrum ? | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 10:37 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | I think it's short enough if you don't have to repeat it all the time. | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 10:32 | comment | added | Angelo | How about using simply "the point"; in the preliminaries of the paper you could specify that you consider points as schemes by identifying them with spectra of their residue fields. The morphism could be called "the tautological morphism". | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 10:10 | history | asked | Mikhail Bondarko | CC BY-SA 2.5 |