The Stacks project

Comments 1 to 20 out of 10180 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 left comment #11133 on Lemma 101.4.12 in Morphisms of Algebraic Stacks

OK, the proof was insufficient, but the statement is correct, see this fix.


On left comment #11132 on Lemma 29.32.16 in Morphisms of Schemes

Changes are here.


On left comment #11131 on Lemma 101.3.3 in Morphisms of Algebraic Stacks

Fixed here.


On left comment #11130 on Lemma 36.11.8 in Derived Categories of Schemes

Yep. Fixed here.


On left comment #11129 on Lemma 33.16.6 in Varieties

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #11128 on Section 94.12 in Algebraic Stacks

While there are many variants we could discuss, I do not think it is the appropriate place to mention this here. Namely, the comments following the definition are to stress that, modulo some minor differences, it agrees with what Artin, Deligne, and Mumford considered.


On left comment #11127 on Lemma 59.83.2 in Étale Cohomology

Yep. I inserted a sentence explaining what you said.


On left comment #11126 on Lemma 16.5.2 in Smoothing Ring Maps

Thanks! This simplifies the proof of the next proposition. See this.


On left comment #11125 on Lemma 48.12.2 in Duality for Schemes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #11124 on Lemma 15.26.2 in More on Algebra

Fixed here.


On left comment #11123 on Definition 6.9.1 in Sheaves on Spaces

Yep. The phrase "category with products" here means that all products exist, including the empty product.


On left comment #11122 on Lemma 27.11.6 in Constructions of Schemes

It seems you mean II not I. Added.


On left comment #11121 on Section 24.35 in Differential Graded Sheaves

Yes, very good. Fixed here by removing the d from the notation in this section.


On left comment #11120 on Lemma 27.11.1 in Constructions of Schemes

Thanks for the comment. Going to leave as is.


On left comment #11119 on Section 10.57 in Commutative Algebra

Going to leave as is.


On left comment #11118 on Section 17.21 in Sheaves of Modules

Hmm, there is a definition of a sheaf of graded algebras in Section 24.3, although I think maybe in the future we should change it there to say -graded. I have put in a reference to that definition; it is a forward reference but outside a proof and to a definition so I think it won't cause problems for the moment.


On left comment #11117 on Lemma 29.11.6 in Morphisms of Schemes

Added.


On left comment #11116 on Lemma 7.47.11 in Sites and Sheaves

OK, I have changed the text by fixing the typos you pointed out and I inserted the suggestion made by Laurent (so we can now drop the index everywhere in your post). But I did not (yet) add the proof of the fact that the construction is inverse to the natural map. See this commit.


On Kannappan Sampath left comment #11115 on Section 82.11 in Chow Groups of Spaces

This section should link back to section tagged 02RF (not 02RA).


On Gergely Jakovác left comment #11114 on Lemma 26.21.16 in Schemes

I believe the affine subschemes and should be affine and open (at least if one wants to apply Lemma 01KP)