Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.xml Stacks project, see https://stacks.math.columbia.edu en stacks.project@gmail.com (The Stacks project) pieterbelmans@gmail.com (Pieter Belmans) https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/static/stacks.png Stacks project -- Comments https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/recent-comments.rss #4954 on tag 00HL by procvaustralia https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00HL#comment-4954 A new comment by procvaustralia on tag 00HL. We offer all levels of resume writers writing service - AU Professional and Basic. Each of these writing services are tailored to our all customer's needs....

]]>
procvaustralia Mon, 24 Feb 2020 07:10:19 GMT
#4953 on tag 02GW by awllower https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/02GW#comment-4953 A new comment by awllower on tag 02GW. Suggested slogan: Cancellation law for ├ętale morphisms.

]]>
awllower Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:01:17 GMT
#4952 on tag 0B9J by SDIGR https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0B9J#comment-4952 A new comment by SDIGR on tag 0B9J. Typo!?:
Last sentence:
The divisor corresponding to a -rational point of must be of degree , not of degree .

]]>
SDIGR Sun, 23 Feb 2020 03:04:44 GMT
#4951 on tag 0B9H by SDIGR https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0B9H#comment-4951 A new comment by SDIGR on tag 0B9H. Sorry, I mean the other way around.

]]>
SDIGR Sun, 23 Feb 2020 02:32:38 GMT
#4950 on tag 0B9H by SDIGR https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0B9H#comment-4950 A new comment by SDIGR on tag 0B9H. First sentence of the Proof: .

]]>
SDIGR Sun, 23 Feb 2020 02:31:53 GMT
#4949 on tag 0E6N by Min https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0E6N#comment-4949 A new comment by Min on tag 0E6N. What is T in the functor the dualizing sheaf represents? Should it be U?

]]>
Min Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:22:20 GMT
#4948 on tag 0E6N by Min https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0E6N#comment-4948 A new comment by Min on tag 0E6N. What is in the functor the dualizing sheaf represents? Should it be ?

]]>
Min Sun, 23 Feb 2020 09:21:07 GMT
#4947 on tag 00LB by yogesh https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00LB#comment-4947 A new comment by yogesh on tag 00LB. Oops, sorry disregard my previous comment. I got forgot we're talkng about the annihilator as an element of , not . I was thinking of using the previous result of associated primes of short exact sequences applied to so But the proof you give is basically the proof of that result, whose proof is omitted.

]]>
yogesh Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:58:47 GMT
#4946 on tag 00LB by yogesh https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00LB#comment-4946 A new comment by yogesh on tag 00LB. Oops, sorry disregard my previous comment. I got forgot we're talkng about the annihilator as an element of , not .

]]>
yogesh Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:53:02 GMT
#4945 on tag 00LB by yogesh https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00LB#comment-4945 A new comment by yogesh on tag 00LB. In the proof, I think the inclusion is going the wrong way and the rest of the proof is unnecessary. I think any nonzero element of is annihilated by exactly by .

]]>
yogesh Sat, 22 Feb 2020 08:34:02 GMT