Timeline for How to show that an ind-scheme is not a scheme?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | I think it does. The category of schemes embeds into the category of locally topologically ringed spaces, which in turn embeds into the category of functors from schemes to sets. The colimit described in the question is represented as a locally topologically ringed space that is not in the essential image of the first embedding. When you say "why", are you asking a more philosophical question? | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 11:51 | comment | added | Martin Brandenburg | This still dies not answer why the ind-scheme is not a scheme, right? | |
| Jul 12, 2011 at 8:57 | history | edited | S. Carnahan♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 162 characters in body; added 14 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2011 at 8:45 | history | answered | S. Carnahan♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |