Timeline for When are there enough projective sheaves on a space X?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 29, 2017 at 20:31 | history | suggested | Mike Pierce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Mathjaxxed
|
| Nov 29, 2017 at 19:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 29, 2017 at 20:31 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2009 at 13:02 | comment | added | Jon Woolf | The problem if U is not connected is that Z_V(U) need no longer vanish; if V is a component of U then Z_V(U) is a summand of Z(U). So this proof doesn't work without connectivity (at least not without modification). | |
| Nov 16, 2009 at 2:38 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | Can't the above proof be rewriten with the word "connected" removed? | |
| Nov 13, 2009 at 18:03 | comment | added | David Treumann | In the first sentence of your proof you use assume that X is locally connected--is that necessary? I was just about to edit my answer to hedge a little more and say that I don't know what's going on with the Cantor set. | |
| Nov 13, 2009 at 17:51 | history | answered | Jon Woolf | CC BY-SA 2.5 |