\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*}

The Stacks project

Comments 1 to 20 out of 3279 in reverse chronological order.


On Matthieu Romagny left comment #3395 on Lemma 10.46.2 in Commutative Algebra

Remove "algebraically" in the statement of the Lemma.


On Matthieu Romagny left comment #3394 on Section 92.14 in Properties of Algebraic Stacks

Remove "for" in statement of condition (1).


On Vignesh left comment #3390 on Section 10.96 in Commutative Algebra

Sorry about the typo in my comment, in the second paragraph, I wanted to say:

By Lemma 10.86.1, we get that is exact. By Artin-Rees lemma, . Therefore we get is exact as required.


On Vignesh left comment #3389 on Section 10.96 in Commutative Algebra

A different presentation of the proof of Lemma 10.96.1:

Consider a presentation of module M (which is f.g. by assumption) We get that is exact. (Here is viewed as a submodule of .) One sees this by observing that maps surjectively onto .

By Lemma 10.86.1, we get that is exact. By Artin-Rees lemma, Therefore we get is exact as required.

A correction in the proof of Lemma 10.96.2:

Here I think you mean an arbitrary ideal in R (and not specifically the ideal w.r.t. which is completed): .


On Dario left comment #3388 on Lemma 53.2.2 in Fundamental Groups of Schemes

Typo: Let a separable closure...missing be


On Dario left comment #3387 on Lemma 54.70.8 in √Čtale Cohomology

Typo in (1): the map on stalks should also go from F to G


On Dario left comment #3386 on Section 5.28 in Topology

Typo: Moreo generally... Just above 0BDS


On shanbei left comment #3385 on Section 15.8 in More on Algebra

In the third line of proof of (7) in Lemma 07ZA, perhaps you meant the rank of image is less than n instead of \leq?


On Daniel Litt left comment #3384 on Section 1.2 in Introduction

Lines (1), (2), (7), and (11) seem not to be rendering correctly on my computer.


On Reimundo Heluani left comment #3382 on Section 38.12 in Groupoid Schemes

In Lemma 38.12.2, should be .


On Job Rock left comment #3381 on Lemma 8.2.3 in Stacks

I suspsect we want in the statement of the Lemma.


On Kazuki Masugi left comment #3380 on Section 5.8 in Topology

And in the proof of the Lemma5.8.5(2), "Hence there exists with . It follows ." should be "Hence there exists with . It follows ."


On Kazuki Masugi left comment #3379 on Section 5.8 in Topology

In the proof of the Lemma5.8.5(1), "x,y \in X" should be "x,y \in Y"


On Kazuki Masugi left comment #3378 on Section 5.7 in Topology

In the Lemma5.7.6, "p(T)" should be "f(T)".


On left comment #3377 on Lemma 9.20.7 in Fields

Actually, rather you should look here since my previous attempt was erroneous.


On Kazuki Masugi left comment #3376 on Section 4.26 in Categories

There are typos in the proof of the Lemma 4.26.10; b is equivalence class of the pair (h , t) and a is of (g , s).


On left comment #3375 on Lemma 4.25.1 in Categories

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #3374 on Section 28.32 in Morphisms of Schemes

Thanks! I've tried to fix this in this commit but as you perhaps know, the XyJax stuff is a bit shaky.


On left comment #3373 on Section 36.55 in More on Morphisms

Thanks, fixed here.


On left comment #3372 on Section 84.22 in The Cotangent Complex

Thanks, fixed here.