Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2018

    Created Henselian pair and linked to it from Henselian ring and Hensel’s lemma. Probably the definition could be given in more generality for topological rings. The existing definition seems to implicitly assume the discrete topology, since in that case, restricted formal power series are just polynomials, and that’s what appears in the definition I copied over from the Stacks Project.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018

    So, what will be the recommendation on the capitalization question ? So far the entry has “henselian pair” but also “Henselization”.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018

    Is there a consensus among mathematicians who write about such things?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018
    • (edited Mar 5th 2018)

    My mistake on the capitalisation, I’m not sure if there is a consensus. I would personally copy what the Stacks Project does (lowercase), if people don’t mind, but there may be a reasonably standard reference (EGA?, Hartshorne?) that has a different stance. Wikipedia sticks with uppercase.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018

    Does Wikipedia have a style guide? I’m thinking that they probably write ’abelian’ in many articles, but also ’Noetherian’ in others. Which is hard to justify on any principled basis.

    Roughly speaking, I’d say that adjectives named after authors tend to retain capitals at least for a while (e.g., ’Pynchonesque’, ’Shakespearean’), but by the time we get to verb forms it changes to uncaps (’bowdlerize’, ’boycott’). Thus I’d be inclined to go with ’Henselian’ and ’henselization’. Of course, my language is American English; it seems to me that on the European Continent there is more and more a tendency to use lower case, even for the name itself. (I haven’t done statistics or n-grams on this.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2018

    In mathematics my experience is that a given person’s name is usually capitalized, but a few people are honored by non-capitalization, regardless of part of speech. E.g. we say both “abelian” and “abelianize”, and category theorists say “cartesian” (although other mathematicians often still capitalize it), but we also have for instance “De Morgan algebra” and “De Morganization”.

    For reference, an MSE thread about lowercased names in math.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2018

    I think the issue is that in French, they don’t capitalize names when they are used as adjectives. So if a term originated in French, there’s some question of whether you anglicize the capitalization convention. On the Stacks project, the conventions seems to be to capitalize.

    Anyway, I just added a characterization of Henselian rings that I recently learned from Akhil Mathew, which implies that the property of (R,I)(R,I) being Henselian depends only on the ideal II, viewed as a non-unital ring (except for the basic requirement that II is contained in the Jacobson radical of RR).