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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexIn the Idea section of [[Zariski site]], I included a little patch which includes the [[little site]] notion, as well as the big site.

   In the Idea section of Zariski site, I included a little patch which includes the little site notion, as well as the big site.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeNov 20th 2014
   • (edited Nov 20th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to _[[Zariski site]]_ an explicit presentation of the Kripke–Joyal semantics of the big and little Zariski toposes.

   Added to Zariski site an explicit presentation of the Kripke–Joyal semantics of the big and little Zariski toposes.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeMay 8th 2015
   • (edited May 8th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAt _[[Zariski site]]_, there was a remark that the canonical morphisms $Spec A[S^{-1}] \to Spec A$ are always open immersions. This is false, as can be deduced from a [MathOverflow discussion](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20782/ring-theoretic-characterization-of-open-affines). I corrected the article; luckily, the rest of the article didn't depend on the wrong statement. Furthermore, I believe that such a morphism is an open immersion if and only if localizing away from $S$ is the same as localizing away from a certain single element. I might add this observation somewhere as well. *Edit:* The purported proof goes like this. The second criterion stated at the MathOverflow page says that $Spec A[S^{-1}] \to Spec A$ is an open immersion if and only if the extension of the ideal $T = \{ f \in A | A[f^{-1}] \to A[S^{-1},f^{-1}] \text{ is an isomorphism} \} \subseteq A$ in $A[S^{-1}]$ is the unit ideal. A short calculation shows that $T = \bigcap_{s \in S} \sqrt{(s)}$. Therefore $(T) = (1)$ as ideals of $A[S^{-1}]$ if and only if $T \cap S \neq \emptyset$, i.e. if and only if there exists an element $s_0 \in S$ such that localizing away from $s_0$ is the same as localizing away from $S$.

   At Zariski site, there was a remark that the canonical morphisms $Spec A[S^{-1}] \to Spec A$ are always open immersions. This is false, as can be deduced from a MathOverflow discussion. I corrected the article; luckily, the rest of the article didn’t depend on the wrong statement.

   Furthermore, I believe that such a morphism is an open immersion if and only if localizing away from $S$ is the same as localizing away from a certain single element. I might add this observation somewhere as well.

   Edit: The purported proof goes like this. The second criterion stated at the MathOverflow page says that $Spec A[S^{-1}] \to Spec A$ is an open immersion if and only if the extension of the ideal $T = \{ f \in A | A[f^{-1}] \to A[S^{-1},f^{-1}] \text{ is an isomorphism} \} \subseteq A$ in $A[S^{-1}]$ is the unit ideal. A short calculation shows that $T = \bigcap_{s \in S} \sqrt{(s)}$. Therefore $(T) = (1)$ as ideals of $A[S^{-1}]$ if and only if $T \cap S \neq \emptyset$, i.e. if and only if there exists an element $s_0 \in S$ such that localizing away from $s_0$ is the same as localizing away from $S$.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMay 8th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexPresumably also the same if $S$ is finite.

   Presumably also the same if $S$ is finite.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeMay 8th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded a short remark that sheafification does not change the set of sections over local rings.

   Added a short remark that sheafification does not change the set of sections over local rings.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeMay 8th 2015
   • (edited May 8th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexDavid: Indeed; but localizing away from a finite set of elements is the same as localizing away from their product, so this is not yet a counterexample.

   David: Indeed; but localizing away from a finite set of elements is the same as localizing away from their product, so this is not yet a counterexample.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMay 8th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIngo - I was thinking more in terms of finite intersections of opens are open, rather than algebraic properties of localisations. And conversely, there's little reason to assume in general that infinite intersections of opens (one for each element of $S$) are open.

   Ingo - I was thinking more in terms of finite intersections of opens are open, rather than algebraic properties of localisations. And conversely, there’s little reason to assume in general that infinite intersections of opens (one for each element of $S$) are open.