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
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
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