History of tag 099S
Go back to the tag's page.
| type |
time |
link |
|
changed the statement and the proof
|
2021-07-20 |
11a4d72 |
Fix the same thing again
The previous fix didn't work as the colimit wasn't filtered and the
argument using qcqs didn't work... Anyway, the additional lemma added
here should have been added a long time ago, so it is all for the best!
|
|
changed the statement and the proof
|
2021-07-19 |
17ae3bc |
Fix a proof in proetale
This was quite bad!
Thanks to Owen Barrett
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/099S#comment-6318
https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/099S#comment-6321
|
|
changed the statement and the proof
|
2019-03-29 |
4a0dbb1 |
Move section on comparisong etale and proetale
Also started improving it a bit
|
|
changed the proof
|
2016-06-16 |
cdfeb2d |
Try to clarify proof
Thanks to Dragos Fratila
http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/099S#comment-2044
|
|
assigned tag 099S
|
2013-06-11 |
855db3b
|
Tags: Added new tags
|
|
changed the statement and the proof
|
2013-05-24 |
719c185 |
LaTeX: \etale
Introduced the macro
\def\etale{{\acute{e}tale}}
and replaced all occurences of \acute{e}tale by \etale
|
|
created statement with label lemma-limit-pullback in proetale.tex
|
2013-05-24 |
312f61d |
Start comparing pro-etale and etale topologies
|