Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorStephan A Spahn
   • CommentTimeMay 27th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Stephan A Spahn
   Format: MarkdownItexI added in the definition of [[algebraic group]] the requirement ''field'' into ''algebraically closed field''. Alternatively one could omit ''field'' in the definition at all since this is implicit in ''variety''.

   I added in the definition of algebraic group the requirement ”field” into ”algebraically closed field”. Alternatively one could omit ”field” in the definition at all since this is implicit in ”variety”.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 27th 2012
   • (edited May 27th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIt is the usual terminology about variety, but I am not sure that it is entirely universal when in very general contexts. Sometimes, following Mumford, one considers "varieties" over somewhat more general schemes (including over $Spec k$, where $k$ is not a field. In that case, it is required that both $S$ and $S$-variety as a $\mathbf{Z}$-scheme are __reduced__ irreducible and __separated__. There is also a term "infinite-dimensional variety" for subvarieties in this sense of infinite-dimensional projective space. While I still agree that the standard notion of algebraic group is for varieties (in the old fashioned sense) over a field, I would disagree with algebraic closedness. For example, the algebraic groups over finite fields are a pretty standard object, predating scheme theory. See * Serge Lang, _Algebraic groups over finite fields_, American J. Math. __78__:3 (Jul., 1956), pp. 555-563, 1956 [jstor](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2372673) * P. Deligne and G. Lusztig, _Representations of reductive groups over finite fields_, The Annals of Mathematics (2) __103__:1 (1976), pp. 103-161, [jstor](http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1971021) I made some minor changes to [[algebraic group]].

   It is the usual terminology about variety, but I am not sure that it is entirely universal when in very general contexts. Sometimes, following Mumford, one considers “varieties” over somewhat more general schemes (including over $Spec k$, where $k$ is not a field. In that case, it is required that both $S$ and $S$-variety as a $\mathbf{Z}$-scheme are reduced irreducible and separated. There is also a term “infinite-dimensional variety” for subvarieties in this sense of infinite-dimensional projective space.

   While I still agree that the standard notion of algebraic group is for varieties (in the old fashioned sense) over a field, I would disagree with algebraic closedness. For example, the algebraic groups over finite fields are a pretty standard object, predating scheme theory. See

   • Serge Lang, Algebraic groups over finite fields, American J. Math. 78:3 (Jul., 1956), pp. 555-563, 1956 jstor
   • P. Deligne and G. Lusztig, Representations of reductive groups over finite fields, The Annals of Mathematics (2) 103:1 (1976), pp. 103-161, jstor

   I made some minor changes to algebraic group.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorStephan A Spahn
   • CommentTimeMay 28th 2012
   • (edited May 28th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Stephan A Spahn
   Format: MarkdownItexIn this case we could -as I said above- omit the word ''field'' in the definition and take ''k-variety'' as an atom since the notion in discussion is not the ''group''-part of the definition, but the ''k-variety''-part. In particular the definition of [[algebraic variety]] which redirects [[variety]] says that the field is algebraically closed, but I see that the prefix ''algebraic'' shall indicate the algebraically closedness. At least I think of a ''[[variety]]'' $X$ (without prefix) as the space of maximal ideals in a polynomial ring over an (arbitrary) field. But the nlab indicated otherwise - mostly since the entry [[variety]] was lacking. So, I made a short note [[variety]].

   In this case we could -as I said above- omit the word ”field” in the definition and take ”k-variety” as an atom since the notion in discussion is not the ”group”-part of the definition, but the ”k-variety”-part. In particular the definition of algebraic variety which redirects variety says that the field is algebraically closed, but I see that the prefix ”algebraic” shall indicate the algebraically closedness.

   At least I think of a ”variety” $X$ (without prefix) as the space of maximal ideals in a polynomial ring over an (arbitrary) field. But the nlab indicated otherwise - mostly since the entry variety was lacking.

   So, I made a short note variety.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 28th 2012
   • (edited May 28th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI think I am OK with the idea section of [[algebraic group]]. I am not familiar with the prefixing "algebraic" for variety to denote algebraic closedness, it is rather just to make it unambiguous not to mean [[analytic variety]], or even rigid analytic variety. I think that, apart from that, variety and algebraic variety are synonyms, unless one allows also analytic varieties; the algebraic closedness is just a matter of the usual convention, as otherwise the geometry becomes highly irregular: one fails Nullstellensatz to start with. I should mention it was me who wrote the condition of algebraic closedness in the entry [[algebraic variety]]; though as I say most but not all literature restricts this way. There is of course Mumford's notion of variety. It is partly based on the fact that the category of varieties embeds into the category of reduced schemes. But this embedding is of course not identical on objects as topological spaces: for any variety the corresponding scheme has more points (as it has non-closed points). Finally, entry [[variety]] might, as it is often referred as [[variety]] with links from the $n$Lab) be eventually just a disambiguation entry: namely in addition to [[analytic variety]] there is a notion of [[variety of algebras]] in [[universal algebra]]).

   I think I am OK with the idea section of algebraic group.

   I am not familiar with the prefixing “algebraic” for variety to denote algebraic closedness, it is rather just to make it unambiguous not to mean analytic variety, or even rigid analytic variety. I think that, apart from that, variety and algebraic variety are synonyms, unless one allows also analytic varieties; the algebraic closedness is just a matter of the usual convention, as otherwise the geometry becomes highly irregular: one fails Nullstellensatz to start with. I should mention it was me who wrote the condition of algebraic closedness in the entry algebraic variety; though as I say most but not all literature restricts this way.

   There is of course Mumford’s notion of variety. It is partly based on the fact that the category of varieties embeds into the category of reduced schemes. But this embedding is of course not identical on objects as topological spaces: for any variety the corresponding scheme has more points (as it has non-closed points).

   Finally, entry variety might, as it is often referred as variety with links from the $n$Lab) be eventually just a disambiguation entry: namely in addition to analytic variety there is a notion of variety of algebras in universal algebra).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI made [[variety]] into a disambiguation entry. Entry [[algebraic variety]] has a discussion about the relation of traditional algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed field to the category of [[integral scheme]]s of finite type.

   I made variety into a disambiguation entry. Entry algebraic variety has a discussion about the relation of traditional algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed field to the category of integral schemes of finite type.