Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.xml Stacks project, see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu en stacks.project@gmail.com (The Stacks project) pieterbelmans@gmail.com (Pieter Belmans) https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/static/stacks.png Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.rss #9027 on tag 09GK by João Candeias https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/09GK#comment-9027 A new comment by João Candeias on tag 09GK. I think this is still not quite correct, as a countable product of countables is not countable (already a countable product of finite sets isn't countable), so in particular if we take , we see that a countable product of copies of has bigger cadinality than that of (which is equal to ). Hence this is not a valid argument.

However, we are only interested in a subset of , which can be obtained as a countable union (all possible degrees ) of finite products (all possible coefficients of the polynomial) of , and this is indeed bounded by .

]]>
João Candeias Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:16:59 GMT
#9026 on tag 0G5Z by James https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0G5Z#comment-9026 A new comment by James on tag 0G5Z. "zero" is repeated twice in the 3rd line of the proof.

]]>
James Thu, 25 Apr 2024 02:04:22 GMT
#9025 on tag 01KH by Liam https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01KH#comment-9025 A new comment by Liam on tag 01KH. In the proof of Lemma 26.21.7 (b), it's not obvious that the collection of U V forms an open cover, however, we can check this easily by checking that every k-point is in one of this collection for every field.

]]>
Liam Wed, 24 Apr 2024 04:44:17 GMT
#9024 on tag 00S0 by Zheng Yang https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00S0#comment-9024 A new comment by Zheng Yang on tag 00S0. There is a typo below Defn. 07BN in the description of the cotangent complex. The sentence should be corrected to read: "... the chain complex associated to the simplicial module..."

]]>
Zheng Yang Sat, 20 Apr 2024 06:02:19 GMT
#9023 on tag 00NY by jack https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00NY#comment-9023 A new comment by jack on tag 00NY. Here the formula defining R is recursive, but it should just be C^\inft(\mathbb{R}) of course. 052H has the same problem since it is a copy of this.

]]>
jack Sat, 20 Apr 2024 08:54:22 GMT
#9022 on tag 09DT by Zhenhua Wu https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/09DT#comment-9022 A new comment by Zhenhua Wu on tag 09DT. In the last line, the function should be .

]]>
Zhenhua Wu Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:00:04 GMT
#9021 on tag 010I by Stacks project https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/010I#comment-9021 A new comment by Stacks project on tag 010I. @#8412 Thanks and fixed here.

]]>
Stacks project Fri, 19 Apr 2024 03:53:36 GMT
#9020 on tag 04GG by Stacks project https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/04GG#comment-9020 A new comment by Stacks project on tag 04GG. Thanks to the comments 8410, 8561, 8796, 8797. Fixed here.

]]>
Stacks project Fri, 19 Apr 2024 03:45:57 GMT
#9019 on tag 00GH by Stacks project https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00GH#comment-9019 A new comment by Stacks project on tag 00GH. Thanks and fixed here.

]]>
Stacks project Fri, 19 Apr 2024 03:30:57 GMT
#9018 on tag 05TA by Stacks project https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05TA#comment-9018 A new comment by Stacks project on tag 05TA. Thanks, this is indeed better. Fixed here.

]]>
Stacks project Fri, 19 Apr 2024 03:27:48 GMT