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 locally-ringed-spaces
Search options not deleted
user 450
13
votes
Justification of the term "invertible sheaf"
Yes, for quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme it is true that if $M \otimes N \cong \mathcal{O}_X$, then
$M$ is locally free of rank one. It is enough to prove the
REDUCTION Let $M,N$ be $A$- module …
- 47.5k
15
votes
Accepted
What is the right version of "partitions of unity implies vanishing sheaf cohomology"
Although we clearly all have more or less the same answers, here is how I like to organize things.
I) Let $\mathcal F$ be a sheaf of abelian groups on the topological space $X$. It is said to be sof …
- 47.5k