Timeline for Qcoh(-) algebraic stack?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2011 at 4:54 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Martin - see my question mathoverflow.net/questions/56962/…, which would look for examples of this form, were it actually a 'geometric' stack. | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 20:42 | vote | accept | Martin Brandenburg | ||
| Jun 18, 2011 at 15:09 | answer | added | Angelo | timeline score: 20 | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 13:30 | comment | added | Angelo | Dear Martin, are you asking me or Matthieu? | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 12:47 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Thanks. Could you make this into an answer? | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 12:13 | comment | added | Angelo | Artin's axioms do not apply in this case, because the stack is not limit-preserving. They only work with stacks that are locally finitely presented. Matthieu is absolutely right. | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 11:41 | comment | added | Matthieu Romagny | If you look at quasi-coherent modules then the stack is certainly much too big to be algebraic, but for coherent modules you can have a look at Laumon & Moret-Bailly, Champs Algébriques, thm. 4.6.2.1. | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 10:30 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Either we just consider the invertible morphisms, or we extend the definition of a stack to categories fibered in categories. | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 9:51 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | If I'm not mistaken, the first problem is that it is a stack in categories, not a stack in groupoids. Are you throwing away non-invertible morphisms? | |
| Jun 18, 2011 at 8:57 | history | asked | Martin Brandenburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |