Recent comments
There are currently 2716 comments. You are now displaying comments 0 to 20 in reverse chronological order.
- On September 23 Dario Weißmann left comment 2825 on tag 05DZ
I think we should mention that we can choose $\mathfrak{q}$ to be a minimal prime of $S/I$, thus a m...
- On September 23 Dario Weißmann left comment 2824 on tag 00T7
Typos in the proof of (7): - $\mathfrak{p}$ is not introduced as a prime of $R$. - "Hence, si...
- On September 23 Antoine Chambert-Loir left comment 2823 on tag 01OF
To add some noise to the (non-existing) discussion about comments 1610 and 1668, I note that the ter...
- On September 23 Dario Weißmann left comment 2822 on tag 00PM
Typos in the proof. It sould read "...of finite type and of dimension $0$. Hence it is finite over $...
- On September 23 Dario Weißmann left comment 2821 on tag 00PJ
Typo in the proof of (2) implies (3): "$Q$ is a finite $S$-modules" should read "$Q$ is a finite $S...
- On September 22 Dario Weißmann left comment 2820 on tag 00S7
(Why) Isn't the canonical map in the lemma a homotopy equivalence?
- On September 21 Matthieu Romagny left comment 2819 on tag 0CAT
Typo in first sentence : if two schemes pointed schemes...
- On September 20 Jonathan Gruner left comment 2818 on tag 0DVB
Let $R$ be ring map. -> Let $R$ be a ring.
- On September 20 Pieter Belmans left comment 2817 on tag 0DP6
@2815: The difference between what you see in the source and the XyJax error is because we are repla...
- On September 20 Raymond Cheng left comment 2816 on tag 0DP6
@2815: Indeed, the diagram is broken. This appears to be an issue with XyJax. Specifically, it appea...
- On September 20 David Roberts left comment 2815 on tag 0DP6
The maths display after "Hence we can form the fibre product diagram" is broken - I get a parse erro...
- On September 20 Samir Canning left comment 2814 on tag 01HH
I think there's a missing "is an isomorphism" following $f^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Y = f'^{-1}\mathcal{O}...
- On September 19 Dario Weißmann left comment 2813 on tag 00O0
Typo in the proof of (2)(a): "... for $d(f)\subset W" should read "...for $D(f) \subset W".
- On September 19 Dario Weißmann left comment 2812 on tag 00U2
In the proof of (5), we omit the last part. But this is actually (a version of) lemma 10.39.6.
- On September 19 Dario Weißmann left comment 2811 on tag 03NQ
Typo(s) in the paragraph after Definition 53.13.1: - "Given the data $\chi, \alpha, \{\chi_j\}_{i...
- On September 19 Dario Weißmann left comment 2810 on tag 03NQ
Typo(s) in the paragraph after Definition 53.13.1: - "Given the data $\chi, \alpha, \{\chi_j}_{i\...
- On September 19 Jonathan Gruner left comment 2809 on tag 02GI
PS: Especially because morphisms and polynomials can both be monic!
- On September 19 Jonathan Gruner left comment 2808 on tag 02GI
(3) is confusing because f is the name of the morphism and a polynomial.
- On September 16 BL left comment 2807 on tag 0BUM
Silly typo, in third line from the end: "and we find tat" -- "tat" should be "that."
- On September 14 Luke left comment 2806 on tag 006V
Simple typo of the word "which" in the first line.