Timeline for Differences between reflexives and projectives modules
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2009 at 15:06 | comment | added | Hideyuki Kabayakawa | When I say "in integrally closed noetherian domains that are enough to work" It means that the work you can do in general rings with fin. gen. projective go on in Krull domains with divisorial lattices. Thanks for references | |
| Dec 1, 2009 at 23:31 | comment | added | Graham Leuschke | I don't know what "in integrally closed noetherian domains that are enough to work" means. Even for Cohen-Macaulay (or Gorenstein) isolated singularities, reflexivity is a much much weaker condition. For the other part, it's certainly true if $R$ is locally Gorenstein at the minimal primes, and I dimly remember it's always true. See Auslander-Bridger for the generically-Gorenstein case. | |
| Dec 1, 2009 at 23:14 | comment | added | Hideyuki Kabayakawa | The reflexivity is a weaker condition, but in integrally closed noetherian domains that are enough to work. You spoke about every second syzygy is reflexive. I know that result for Krull domains (ker of homomorphism of divisorial are divisorial), but I think you speak about every type of ring. Isn´t it? Please, Can you give me references? | |
| Dec 1, 2009 at 22:48 | history | answered | Graham Leuschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |