The Stacks project

Comments 1 to 20 out of 4369 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 #4658 on Section 10.48 in Commutative Algebra

Although you are right that it is equivalent, it is not completely trivial to see the equivalence. The corresponding result for "geometrically reduced" is Lemma 10.43.3 and the corresponding result for "geometrically irreducible" is Lemma 10.46.3 except that unfortunately it is missing the part where we say it is enough to look for the spectrum of to be irreducible with equal to either the algebraic closure or the separable algebraic closure. I will add this the next time I go through the comments.


On Remy left comment #4657 on Lemma 15.23.8 in More on Algebra

After the second sentence, couldn't you just conclude directly from Tag 15.23.5? (In fact, you don't need to take the image, because exactness on the right would not be needed.)


On Hao left comment #4656 on Section 10.48 in Commutative Algebra

A possibly helpful equivalent definition: If is a algebra, then is geometrically integral iff is a domain.


On left comment #4655 on Section 55.6 in Fundamental Groups of Schemes

The answer to your last question is no. Everything else you say is fine (except I cannot comment on your state of mind). Suggest reading the text by Lenstra (especially section 3) to clarify things, see reference in Section 55.1.


On Dylan Spence left comment #4654 on Lemma 71.6.2 in Derived Categories of Spaces

In the statement of the lemma, should actually be ?


On Rex left comment #4653 on Section 55.6 in Fundamental Groups of Schemes

I'm confused. If you leave out basepoints, then objects in the source category will have nontrivial automorphisms. A natural automorphism of the fibre functor will be required to intertwine with these automorphisms. Does this not force the etale fundamental group as defined above to consist only of the central elements in what should be the fundamental group?


On left comment #4652 on Section 55.6 in Fundamental Groups of Schemes

No.


On Rex left comment #4651 on Section 55.6 in Fundamental Groups of Schemes

Shouldn't the source category of the fibre functor to be, not finite etale coverings, but finite etale coverings with basepoint?


On left comment #4650 on Lemma 35.22.3 in Derived Categories of Schemes

First, of all, we should add a variant of this lemma where and are flat over in which case this lemma is a lot easier to prove. Secondly, in the formula there is a typo and should be . Thirdly, the statement that this lives in degrees needs to be justified by proving a bound on the tor dimension of which follows from the results in the next paragraph.


On Noah Olander left comment #4649 on Lemma 36.66.2 in More on Morphisms

A couple typos:

You should say that is an elementary étale neighborhood since you assume Y is unibranch, not geometrically unibranch.

Right after that, you should say is the unique point of mapping to not vice versa.


On left comment #4648 on Section 22.12 in Differential Graded Algebra

The comments above will soon be obsolete as I am changing the sign rules in this chapter to be more uniform which causes the "problem" above to be fixed.


On Mathcal left comment #4647 on Section 10.5 in Commutative Algebra

In the proof of Lemma:10.5.3 , 4) you don't  need the fact that is finite I think and in the proof of 5) you didn't use the fact that is finite ?


On left comment #4646 on Lemma 36.17.4 in More on Morphisms

Does this Lemma hold for the completion of the strict Henselisation of the local ring?

Let be the completion of the strict henselization. Then is the fiber in bijection with .


On left comment #4645 on Lemma 36.17.4 in More on Morphisms

Does this Lemma hold for the completion of the strict Henselisation of the local ring?

Let be the completion of the strict henselization. Then is the fiber in bijection with .


On Andy left comment #4644 on Lemma 20.7.3 in Cohomology of Sheaves

Sorry I meant to say pushforward, but still should be exact in the presheaf setting.


On Andy left comment #4643 on Lemma 20.7.3 in Cohomology of Sheaves

Adding to the discussion here, I think another point of view is that pullback of sheaves is forgetting it's a sheaf, pulling back, and sheafifying. And the second and third functor do not contribute in the derived setting, hence the statement. I'm not claiming this is any easier than the proof given of course.


On Andy left comment #4642 on Lemma 10.117.7 in Commutative Algebra

There's a typo in the last line, the second term should be


On Andy left comment #4641 on Lemma 10.114.7 in Commutative Algebra

on the -th line from the bottom should be a


On awllower left comment #4640 on Lemma 41.31.6 in Chow Homology and Chern Classes

What is the morphism in the proof? Is it supposed to refer to ?

Also, the end of the first paragraph seems to conclude that

which is different from .


On Théo de Oliveira Santos left comment #4639 on Lemma 7.8.4 in Sites and Sheaves

I think the following is a typo: "" denotes both the maps in the covering as well as the isomorphisms .