Timeline for Chevalley's Theorem on Constructible Sets
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2011 at 15:31 | vote | accept | Confused | ||
| Nov 11, 2011 at 22:47 | comment | added | Confused | Haha, yeah, I've noticed! It's been difficult for a novice like me to discern exactly what results require a perfect, or algebraically closed field, versus what doesn't. I must be mistaken but it seems to me that the algebra on page 32 leading up to the theorem on the same page does not require any special assumptions on the field. | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 21:21 | answer | added | Robert Kucharczyk | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 21:08 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | I'm definitely not an algebraic geometer by trade, either, but in this kind of concrete approach (not using scheme language) it's usual to start over an algebraically closed field and then see what happens to results over smaller fields of definition for a variety. Bringing imperfect fields into the picture complicates the classical methods and motivates a transition to schemes. In older books by Borel, Springer, or me, most of the work is done first over an algebraic closure to avoid the fine points about fields of definition (or other rings). | |
| Nov 11, 2011 at 20:50 | history | asked | Confused | CC BY-SA 3.0 |