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 #6057 on tag 01KH by Alex Gomez https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01KH#comment-6057 A new comment by Alex Gomez on tag 01KH. On the last sentence of the first paragraph of lemma 01KP should be .

]]>
Alex Gomez Mon, 19 Apr 2021 04:33:15 GMT
#6056 on tag 0GDX by Rachel Webb https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0GDX#comment-6056 A new comment by Rachel Webb on tag 0GDX. In the lemma statement, should be .

]]>
Rachel Webb Sat, 17 Apr 2021 03:05:13 GMT
#6055 on tag 0BSE by Chern https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0BSE#comment-6055 A new comment by Chern on tag 0BSE. Typo: "for every for every"

]]>
Chern Sat, 17 Apr 2021 12:36:52 GMT
#6054 on tag 031G by Jonas Ehrhard https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/031G#comment-6054 A new comment by Jonas Ehrhard on tag 031G. I think this lemma should be stated after the discussion of diagram 10.131.5.1 / 00RQ, since the diagram explains the colimit .

Also, I just spend half an hour searching for the existence of colimits of rings, until I found exercise 109.2.2 / 078J. Maybe this could be referenced?

]]>
Jonas Ehrhard Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:52:01 GMT
#6053 on tag 00RM by Jonas Ehrhard https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00RM#comment-6053 A new comment by Jonas Ehrhard on tag 00RM. This might be nitpicking, but shouldn't it be just in front of definition 10.131.2?

]]>
Jonas Ehrhard Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:15:04 GMT
#6052 on tag 0FKR by Hans Schoutens https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0FKR#comment-6052 A new comment by Hans Schoutens on tag 0FKR. In 2nd line of the statement of Lemma 0FKT, ...where F^\bullet be a bounded... should be ...where G^\bullet is a bounded...

]]>
Hans Schoutens Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:42:25 GMT
#6051 on tag 0EBQ by Ashwin Iyengar https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0EBQ#comment-6051 A new comment by Ashwin Iyengar on tag 0EBQ. Should the first equation read ?

]]>
Ashwin Iyengar Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:59:00 GMT
#6050 on tag 03C3 by Johan https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/03C3#comment-6050 A new comment by Johan on tag 03C3. What is meant is that there is an isomorphism of fields which induces the indentity on . More precisely, if and are the inclusion maps, then . I will improve the text the next time I go through all the comments.

]]>
Johan Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:06:57 GMT
#6049 on tag 0328 by Mark https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0328#comment-6049 A new comment by Mark on tag 0328. It might be better to add a citation for the sentence "Then clearly is a discrete valuation ring." I think it's regular+dimension 1 (Tag 00PD (3)). (At least this was not clear to me at first glance, I wondered quite a while around noetherianness.)

]]>
Mark Sun, 11 Apr 2021 09:35:39 GMT
#6048 on tag 03C3 by Mark https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/03C3#comment-6048 A new comment by Mark on tag 03C3. In the statement of the lemma: what does it mean for a field extension to be isomorphic to another field extension ?

]]>
Mark Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:00:24 GMT