The Stacks project

Comments 1 to 20 out of 6414 in reverse chronological order.

\begin{equation*} \DeclareMathOperator\Coim{Coim} \DeclareMathOperator\Coker{Coker} \DeclareMathOperator\Ext{Ext} \DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom} \DeclareMathOperator\Im{Im} \DeclareMathOperator\Ker{Ker} \DeclareMathOperator\Mor{Mor} \DeclareMathOperator\Ob{Ob} \DeclareMathOperator\Sh{Sh} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafExt{\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafHom{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}} \DeclareMathOperator\Spec{Spec} \newcommand\colim{\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\lim{\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Qcoh{\mathit{Qcoh}} \newcommand\Sch{\mathit{Sch}} \newcommand\QCohstack{\mathcal{QC}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Cohstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Spacesstack{\mathcal{S}\!\mathit{paces}} \newcommand\Quotfunctor{\mathrm{Quot}} \newcommand\Hilbfunctor{\mathrm{Hilb}} \newcommand\Curvesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{urves}} \newcommand\Polarizedstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{olarized}} \newcommand\Complexesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{omplexes}} \newcommand\Pic{\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Picardstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{ic}} \newcommand\Picardfunctor{\mathrm{Pic}} \newcommand\Deformationcategory{\mathcal{D}\!\mathit{ef}} \end{equation*}

On Cedric Luger left comment #6883 on Lemma 97.4.1 in Artin's Axioms

In the sentence that starts with ''To finish the proof'' in the second paragraph, the should be an , right?


On left comment #6882 on Lemma 32.4.13 in Limits of Schemes

@#6665 yes because is the identity functor on all modules


On left comment #6881 on Definition 110.26.2 in Exercises

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6880 on Situation 32.4.5 in Limits of Schemes

Thanks. Added some text following this block. See here.


On left comment #6879 on Lemma 32.4.3 in Limits of Schemes

Yes, it is enough to have one of the schemes to be quasi-compact. But they do all need to be assumed nonempty of course. I'm going to leave this as is.


On left comment #6878 on Lemma 32.4.4 in Limits of Schemes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6877 on Lemma 32.4.1 in Limits of Schemes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6876 on Section 15.48 in More on Algebra

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6875 on Section 32.8 in Limits of Schemes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6874 on Lemma 37.55.12 in More on Morphisms

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6873 on Section 10.108 in Commutative Algebra

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6872 on Section 10.63 in Commutative Algebra

@#6650: but the proposition is only applied to which is finite.

@#6781, 6782, 6783: I am going to leave this alone. This lemma is used a lot and I don't want to change it. We can add another lemma, but then please state carefully what the lemma should say.


On left comment #6871 on Lemma 10.108.2 in Commutative Algebra

OK, no, that is because the second exact sequence isn't a short exact sequence in general. So then we do not write the at the beginning. OK?


On left comment #6870 on Lemma 33.42.8 in Varieties

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6869 on Lemma 42.29.5 in Chow Homology and Chern Classes

Going to leave this for now


On left comment #6868 on Lemma 42.29.1 in Chow Homology and Chern Classes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6867 on Lemma 42.25.4 in Chow Homology and Chern Classes

Yes, this is because the sums are only locally finite. Since the operations aren't linear for infinite sums (only for locally finite ones) we can't argue by linearity. This is why we construct and . But it is certainly a red herring if you are only interested in the case of varieties for example.


On left comment #6866 on Lemma 42.25.3 in Chow Homology and Chern Classes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6865 on Lemma 45.14.13 in Weil Cohomology Theories

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #6864 on Section 10.47 in Commutative Algebra

Thanks and fixed here.