Not signed in

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

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated a minimum at _[[global field]]_

   created a minimum at global field

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThis seems unrelated to [[local field]]. That page already has a warning about terminology; should we add this?

   This seems unrelated to local field. That page already has a warning about terminology; should we add this?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, should be added.

   Yes, should be added.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexRather than say "unrelated to", I would say it's "contrasted with" [[local field]]. Of course there are relations between the two; a global field is frequently analyzed in terms of its local field completions. What would the warning say?

   Rather than say “unrelated to”, I would say it’s “contrasted with” local field. Of course there are relations between the two; a global field is frequently analyzed in terms of its local field completions. What would the warning say?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThe most basic warning is just to not think that the concepts are negations.

   The most basic warning is just to not think that the concepts are negations.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's what I figured; thanks.

   That’s what I figured; thanks.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 20th 2014
   • (edited Jul 20th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI suppose the terminology originates in -- or at least may be read in hindsight as -- the fact that global fields are the fields which arise as global sections of the sheaf of rational functions on an arithmetic curve over $\mathbb{F}_p$ or "over $\mathbb{F}_1$". The Wikipedia entry kind of sort of gets in this direction in its historical paragraph, but is not too specific.

   I suppose the terminology originates in – or at least may be read in hindsight as – the fact that global fields are the fields which arise as global sections of the sheaf of rational functions on an arithmetic curve over or “over ”.

   The Wikipedia entry kind of sort of gets in this direction in its historical paragraph, but is not too specific.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 21st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItex>...as global sections... A term in some dependent product type then?

   …as global sections…

   A term in some dependent product type then?