Timeline for How to show that an ind-scheme is not a scheme?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 13:54 | comment | added | Michal Zydor | I got two ideas confused for a while, now I understand your answer, thanks. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 13:52 | vote | accept | Michal Zydor | ||
| Jul 12, 2011 at 12:47 | comment | added | Jason Starr | It depends on what is being asked. In the post, it is asked why this subset of $\prod_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} k$ is not an algebraic subset. That is the question I answered. The separate question, is there some way of making this set a scheme, is not the one answered. | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 6:27 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | Yes this proof is incomplete. | |
| Jul 11, 2011 at 22:00 | comment | added | Michal Zydor | Thanks, I was sure I had understood, but now I have doubts though. Doesn't it only show that $k((\epsilon))$ is not affine? But, anyway, you made me realize that I was missing one thing - $\epsilon^ik[[\epsilon]]$ are closed in $k((\epsilon))$. | |
| Jul 11, 2011 at 21:27 | vote | accept | Michal Zydor | ||
| Jul 11, 2011 at 22:01 | |||||
| Jul 11, 2011 at 20:13 | history | answered | Jason Starr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |