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 $\mathbb{F}_p$ 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.

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?