The Stacks project

Comments 1481 to 1500 out of 9050 in reverse chronological order.

\begin{equation*} \DeclareMathOperator\Coim{Coim} \DeclareMathOperator\Coker{Coker} \DeclareMathOperator\Ext{Ext} \DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom} \DeclareMathOperator\Im{Im} \DeclareMathOperator\Ker{Ker} \DeclareMathOperator\Mor{Mor} \DeclareMathOperator\Ob{Ob} \DeclareMathOperator\Sh{Sh} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafExt{\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}} \DeclareMathOperator\SheafHom{\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}} \DeclareMathOperator\Spec{Spec} \newcommand\colim{\mathop{\mathrm{colim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\lim{\mathop{\mathrm{lim}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Qcoh{\mathit{Qcoh}} \newcommand\Sch{\mathit{Sch}} \newcommand\QCohstack{\mathcal{QC}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Cohstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{oh}} \newcommand\Spacesstack{\mathcal{S}\!\mathit{paces}} \newcommand\Quotfunctor{\mathrm{Quot}} \newcommand\Hilbfunctor{\mathrm{Hilb}} \newcommand\Curvesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{urves}} \newcommand\Polarizedstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{olarized}} \newcommand\Complexesstack{\mathcal{C}\!\mathit{omplexes}} \newcommand\Pic{\mathop{\mathrm{Pic}}\nolimits} \newcommand\Picardstack{\mathcal{P}\!\mathit{ic}} \newcommand\Picardfunctor{\mathrm{Pic}} \newcommand\Deformationcategory{\mathcal{D}\!\mathit{ef}} \end{equation*}

On Cameron Ruether left comment #8152 on Section 19.2 in Injectives

After Lemma 05NU (Baer's Criterion), the first sentence begins "If is an -module, then in general we may have a semi-complete diagram..." but the remainder of the paragraph uses . If the 's were replaced with then the phrase "given an -module " in the following paragraph above 05NV could also be removed.


On left comment #8151 on Lemma 15.27.3 in More on Algebra

Thnaks and fixed here.


On left comment #8150 on Section 3.3 in Set Theory

OK starting now, I am going to delete comments on this page as it seems to attract comments which are not on the content of the Stacks project at all.


On left comment #8149 on Lemma 33.36.6 in Varieties

OK, Shizhang Li added the universal homeomorphism has 2-out-of-3 property and then I added a link to that (new) lemma here. If you want your name added to the contributors, please give first+last name.


On left comment #8148 on Lemma 30.21.3 in Cohomology of Schemes

Thanks and fixed here.


On left comment #8147 on Lemma 36.32.3 in Derived Categories of Schemes

THanks and fixed here.


On left comment #8146 on Lemma 10.114.5 in Commutative Algebra

Not necessary because we proved that any containing in works.


On left comment #8145 on Lemma 26.17.5 in Schemes

THanks and fixed here.


On left comment #8144 on Lemma 10.41.5 in Commutative Algebra

Yes, you can do this too. Leaving this alone as is for now.


On left comment #8143 on Lemma 13.18.9 in Derived Categories

Thanks and slightly differently fixed here.


On Rachel Webb left comment #8142 on Lemma 30.19.2 in Cohomology of Schemes

Small typo: I think we want "Then is a finite -module . . . ''


On Laurent Moret-Bailly left comment #8141 on Lemma 76.31.2 in More on Morphisms of Spaces

I think should be .


On Laurent Moret-Bailly left comment #8140 on Lemma 76.31.1 in More on Morphisms of Spaces

If the fiber is empty, (2) gives the value . Does this count as an integer? If not, (1) gives the value .


On Ahmed left comment #8139 on Section 4.10 in Categories

I think a proof of uniqueness is a good idea since in the next section, uniqueness of coequalizers was argued using that of equalizers.


On Bach left comment #8138 on Section 43.13 in Intersection Theory

It is not a conflict. Now you simply have . Moreover, the intersection is equidimensional.


On Reginald C Anderson left comment #8137 on Section 43.13 in Intersection Theory

By "Section 43.1" I mean the Introduction, which is 0AZ7


On Reginald C Anderson left comment #8136 on Section 43.13 in Intersection Theory

Doesn't Definition 0AZQ(1) on "intersect properly" conflict with the definition given in Section 43.1? (there, equality holds; here, it's an inequality)


On Oren Ben-Bassat left comment #8134 on Definition 10.144.1 in Commutative Algebra

Oops please ignore that, I meant


On Oren Ben-Bassat left comment #8133 on Definition 10.144.1 in Commutative Algebra

Do we allow also ?.


On Dennis Eriksson left comment #8132 on Lemma 36.8.2 in Derived Categories of Schemes

It says "This is true because f_∗ I^n is flasque", but I think there should be no direct image there.