Torsten Schoeneberg
• Member for 11 years, 6 months
• Last seen this week
• on tour
Stats
2,434
reputation
159k
reached
35
answers
5
questions
Loading…
Communities
View all
About

My doctoral thesis Semisimple Lie Algebras and their classification over $$\mathfrak{p}$$-adic fields has appeared as Mémoires de la SMF 151.

Errata and remarks:

• Page 10, definition 2.1.2: Omit iii(b).
• Page 11, Remark 2.1.4i: Ignore the statement in parentheses: The analogous statement for centralisers holds too.
• Page 25, line 9: Reference (1) points to the equation at the bottom of p. 13.
• Page 46, Remark 3.1.54(ii): First parenthetical remark, cf. MO/164198. Last three lines, cf. MS/764696.
• Page 47, second line of 3.2: Omit the nonsensical "[Spr3 ... ... corrections" (leftover from an earlier draft).
• Page 53, footnote: the reference should be to exercise 16.b.
• Page 57, first line after the proof: The reference is Bo2, VIII.5.2.
• Page 68, line 2: The third reference is Sel1, IV §§1-2.
• Page 70, line 8: It should say "... if there are no arrows in its Satake-Tits diagram." (Pointed out by Prof H. Rubenthaler.)
• Page 86, second line of 4.5.1.3: Read "For $$r=\nu=\frac{1}{2}n$$, we have"
• Page 88, first line after the big matrix: Replace "$$D \setminus k$$" by "$$\mathcal{D}\mathfrak{D} = [\mathfrak{D}, \mathfrak{D}]$$".
• Page 93, fifth line of the proof: Replace "$$D \setminus k^*$$" by "$$\mathcal{D}\mathfrak{D} = [\mathfrak{D}, \mathfrak{D}]$$", and "$$r$$" by "$$r+1$$". (Pointed out by Prof. H. Rubenthaler.)
• Page 106, line 10: Replace "So $$j$$ does not divide $$n$$" by "So $$gcd(j,n) =1$$".
• Page 108: Equation (28) should be read mod $$\mathcal{O}_k^* \cdot \pi_k^{\ 2\Bbb Z}$$.
• Page 109, line 5: This equation should be read mod $$\mathcal{O}_k^* \cdot \pi_k^{\ 3\Bbb Z}$$.
• Page 113, second line after the top diagrams: Replace "$$BC_{(n+1)/2}$$" by "$$BC_{(n-1)/2}$$".
• Page 116, line 9: Replace "$$B_r$$" by "$$BC_r$$".
• Page 139, line 2: Replace "now" by "no".

J’avais passé longtemps dans l’étude des sciences abstraites et le peu de communication qu’on en peut avoir m’en avait dégoûté. Quand j’ai commencé l’étude de l’homme, j’ai vu que ces sciences abstraites ne sont pas propres à l’homme, et que je m’égarais plus de ma condition en y pénétrant que les autres en l’ignorant. J’ai pardonné aux autres d’y peu savoir, mais j’ai cru trouver au moins bien des compagnons en l’étude de l’homme et que c’est le vrai étude qui lui est propre. J’ai été trompé. Il y en a encore moins qui l’étudient que la géométrie. Ce n’est que manque de savoir étudier cela qu’on cherche le reste. Mais n’est‑ce pas que ce n’est pas encore là la science que l’homme doit avoir, et qu’il lui est meilleur de s’ignorer pour être heureux.

-- Pascal (Pensées, Lafuma 687 = Brunschwicg 144)

1
gold badge
27
silver badges
32
bronze badges
93
Score
14
Posts
35
Posts %
21
Score
10
Posts
25
Posts %
15
Score
4
Posts
10
Posts %
15
Score
3
Posts
8
Posts %
15
Score
2
Posts
5
Posts %
14
Score
5
Posts
12
Posts %
Top posts
View all questions and answers
37
Mar 19, 2014
25
Oct 23, 2012
24
Nov 13, 2017
16
Mar 18, 2013
15
Nov 20, 2012
12
Mar 7, 2014
11
Jan 21, 2014
11
Feb 6, 2023
Top network posts
View all network posts