Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with sites
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 11640
For questions related to the mathematical notion of site, which among others generalizes the notion of topological space. For questions on internet-sites, use online-resources, but note that these questions need to be very specific to research-level mathematics to be on-topic.
2
votes
A confusion about covering flatness
Your proof is correct and your "counterexample" is wrong.
Here's how I prefer to think of the definition of "covering-flat": a diagram $F : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ is covering-flat if and only …
- 15.8k
3
votes
Accepted
1st cech cohomology groups on ringed sites
First things first: $\check{H}{}^n(U, \mathscr{F})$ (resp. $H^n(U, \mathscr{F})$) are same whether you regard $\mathscr{F}$ as an $\mathscr{O}$-module or as an abelian sheaf, so we may simplify things …
- 15.8k