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 #7810 on tag 07LT by Raffaele Lamagna https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07LT#comment-7810 A new comment by Raffaele Lamagna on tag 07LT. Typo: I think that in the definition of should be

]]>
Raffaele Lamagna Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:45:10 GMT
#7809 on tag 0FL4 by Peng Du https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0FL4#comment-7809 A new comment by Peng Du on tag 0FL4. I think in condition (1), it needs add that U=Spec(A)⊂X is an (affine) open neighbourhood of x.

]]>
Peng Du Fri, 30 Sep 2022 05:42:40 GMT
#7808 on tag 0FL3 by Peng Du https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0FL3#comment-7808 A new comment by Peng Du on tag 0FL3. Change "After a change of coordinates with may assume" to "After a change of coordinates we may assume".

]]>
Peng Du Fri, 30 Sep 2022 05:36:49 GMT
#7807 on tag 0FL2 by Peng Du https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0FL2#comment-7807 A new comment by Peng Du on tag 0FL2. Needs a period at the end of statement.

]]>
Peng Du Fri, 30 Sep 2022 05:32:12 GMT
#7806 on tag 02NO by David Liu https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/02NO#comment-7806 A new comment by David Liu on tag 02NO. Lemma 29.39.8. : The last line : , should it be ?

]]>
David Liu Thu, 29 Sep 2022 02:23:46 GMT
#7805 on tag 039A by Johan https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/039A#comment-7805 A new comment by Johan on tag 039A. Because French is better? No, it's just that I love saying that phrase. Is that OK? Please feel free to complain!

]]>
Johan Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:46:22 GMT
#7804 on tag 01RI by Johan https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01RI#comment-7804 A new comment by Johan on tag 01RI. I guess my pedantic reply would be: what is a schematically dense subset? Anyway, if I read it as just a "dense subset" then the inclusion of the generic point of a variety would not be a dominant morphism (in general). So I think that would be very different for morphisms of general schemes. For a morphism between varieties, it would give the same notion.

]]>
Johan Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:44:22 GMT
#7803 on tag 0BGS by Johan https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0BGS#comment-7803 A new comment by Johan on tag 0BGS. You use Remark 65.7.6 which in tern uses the preceding Definition 65.7.5 to define what this means. So it makes sense even if the local ring does not make sense. OK?

]]>
Johan Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:37:49 GMT
#7802 on tag 0D7Z by Nicolás https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0D7Z#comment-7802 A new comment by Nicolás on tag 0D7Z. It seems that (2) is missing an explicit mention of the inductive construction, as it is not specified which morphism are we working with. Something like "If , then it is a choice of a Postnikov system for and a choice of a distinguished [...]." (And probably, in that case (2) and (3) could be unified.)

]]>
Nicolás Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:11:37 GMT
#7801 on tag 0BGS by 羽山籍真 https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0BGS#comment-7801 A new comment by 羽山籍真 on tag 0BGS. I would like to ask where the notion "local rings" is defined for general algebraic space, since (2) used this (maybe it would be nice if we recall it here). I only know that for decent algebraic space we have Henselian local rings and for geometric points on general algebraic space we have strict Henselian local rings...

]]>
羽山籍真 Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:10:47 GMT