Stacks project -- Comments

#11743 on tag 0FVC by K. F.

K. F. — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:15:08 GMT

I think there may be a typo in the proof of Lemma 29.40.8 (Tag 0FVC).

In the sentence

“Since $j$ is an immersion, so is $(j,j_{d-d_0})$ ,”

should “ $j$ ” be “ $j_{d-d_0}$ ” ?

#11742 on tag 086Q by K. F.

K. F. — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:56:15 GMT

I think there may be a typo in the sentence

“assume we have affine opens $U,V⊂S_{0}$ such that $U∩V$ is affine too.”

Should this be $U_{0},V_{0} \subset S_{0}?$ In the next sentence, $U,V \subset S$ are defined as the inverse images, and the subsequent notation also uses $U_{0},V_{0}$ .

#11741 on tag 0CKJ by ylzhang

ylzhang — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 03:35:56 GMT

there is a typo: In condition (3), $f^* y$ should be $h^* y$ .

#11740 on tag 001L by Raj

Raj — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:10:37 GMT

Thank you for providing this detailed explanation. The presentation is clear and helpful, especially for readers working through the definitions and examples. I found this section useful as a reference for studying the topic.site\ref{https://textrepeater.tech/}

#11739 on tag 001L by Raj

Raj — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:10:34 GMT

#11738 on tag 0GGK by jilbab omek

jilbab omek — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 07:38:06 GMT

Thanks for the education, i will bookmarks this note!

#11737 on tag 0GG7 by bokep streaming

bokep streaming — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 07:36:04 GMT

that was long explanation with perfect execution, regards !

#11736 on tag 0061 by Elías Guisado

Elías Guisado — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 08:15:18 GMT

Just to set it out with the verb-based terminology (and better have it fixed or discarded for good). To describe the relation $x'\rightsquigarrow x$ , are the following expressions correct?

$x'$ generalizes (from) $x$

$x'$ specializes to $x$

#11735 on tag 06X3 by Boran

Boran — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:29:28 GMT

Part of the typo Felix mentioned doesn't seem to be fixed.

#11734 on tag 05NE by Elías Guisado

Elías Guisado — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 05:34:43 GMT

To conclude that $M\mapsto M\otimes_{X,x}\mathcal{F}=(i_{x,*}M\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}\mathcal{F})_x$ is exact, don't we need to argue $M\mapsto i_{x,*}M$ is exact? This follows from Sheaves, Lemma 6.27.2.