Errata and Addenda for Algebraic Geometry I (Edition 1) Show errata for edition 2
Here we post a list of errata and addenda. The name tags refer to the people who found the mistake. We are very grateful to all of them. Further remarks and hints - trivial or not - are very welcome.
You can submit errata through the web site (or just send us an email).
Explanation: Major error Minor error Typo/Trivial Remark Unclassified
737 errata listed.
| Page | Description | Submitted by | Ed. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
p. 0 - V,
¶
Contents of chapter 2
|
The page's number of section "Excursion: Sheaves" of chapter 2 should be 47, not 46. | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 |
|
p. 0 - VII,
¶
Contents of Chapter 16
|
The page numbers given for the last 3 sections of Chapter 16 should be increased by one. p.528 should be p.529, p.532 should be p.533, p.539 should be p.540. | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 1,
¶
Line 10
|
The condition "If the polynomials f_i are linear" should be replaced by "linear with constant term $0$" (or the solution set is only an affine subspace, in general). | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 1,
¶
Line -16
|
The term "affine variety" is undefined at this point. | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 2,
¶
Line -8
|
Replace 1994 by 1995. | J. Hilgert | 1 |
|
p. 2,
¶
Line 6
|
In "asserts that this equations has no solutions" the word "equations" should be replaced with "equation". | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 5,
¶
Line 12
|
then $X$ inherits many properties of $X'$ (rather than: of $X$) | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 7,
¶
Figure 1
|
Replace $T_2^2-T_1^2(T_1+1)$ by $T_2^2-T_1^2(T_1+1)=0$. | A. B. Nguyen | 1 |
|
p. 7,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace "guide line" by "guideline". | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 7,
¶
Example 1.1, first paragraph
|
Exercise 1.8 should be replaced by, or extended by, an example where the real-valued points are not connected with respect to the analytic topology, to illustrate the point "and sometime the visualizations obtained in this way may be deceptive, see Exercise 1.8." | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 8,
¶
16
|
Replace "field" by "fields". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 10,
¶
Line 17
|
The definition of finite ring homomorphism is messed up. Replace it by: A homomorphism $R \rightarrow R'$ of rings is finite, if it is integral and $R'$ is generated as an $R$-algebra by finitely many elements. | K. Mohri, C. Frank | 1 |
|
p. 10,
¶
Theorem 1.8
|
Add the assumption that $A\ne 0$. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 10,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace $\beta_{n-1}+\beta_{n-2}a+\cdots +a^{n-1}$ by $-(\beta_{n-1}+\beta_{n-2}a+\cdots +\beta_0 a^{n-1})$. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 10,
¶
Line -17
|
Omit ``We will not use this characterization for the proof of the Nullstellensatz.''. A simple form of it is used in the beginning of the proof of Lemma~1.9. | J. Hilgert | 1 |
|
p. 11,
¶
Line 13 (in the Proof of Theorem 1.7)
|
The sentence "Then A[x^(-1)] is a finitely generated K-Algebra not equal to 0" is true for all nonzero x. The proof then shows that there exists a maximal ideal of A not containing x. So there is no need to use proof by contradiction. | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 13,
¶
Line -7
|
After ``hence'', add ``if $Z \cap U \ne \emptyset$''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 13,
¶
Line 16
|
Replace "subset" by "open subset". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 13,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace nonconnected by non-connected. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 14,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace ``than'' by ``then'' and omit ``be''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 14,
¶
Lemma 1.19 (2)
|
Add the assumption that $X\ne\emptyset$. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 14,
¶
3
|
In order to apply Zorn's Lemma here, one should note that every non-empty topological space $X$ indeed contains some irreducible subset, e.g., any singleton. | L. Prader | 1 |
|
p. 14,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace ``$\emptyset \ne J \subset I$'' by ``$\emptyset \ne J \subsetneq I$''. | J. Buck | 1 |
|
p. 14,
¶
Lemma 1.19 (2)
|
The statement remains true without the assumption that $I$ be finite: Let $\emptyset\ne V\subseteq X$ be open. It is enough to show that $V\cap U_i\ne\emptyset$ for all $i$, because this implies that the closure of $V$ in $X$ contains $U_i$, hence that $V$ is dense in $X$. Let $I_1 = \{ i\in I;\ V\cap U_i=\emptyset\}$, $I_2=I\setminus I_1$. Then $X = \bigcup_{i\in I_1} U_i\cup \bigcup_{i\in I_2} U_i$, and this union is disjoint. In fact, assume $U_{i_1}\cap U_{i_2}\ne \emptyset$, $i_\nu\in I_\nu$. Since $V\cap U_{i_2}\ne \emptyset$ and any two non-empty opens in the irreducible space $U_{i_2}$ intersect, we find $U_{i_1}\cap U_{i_2}\cap V \ne \emptyset$, a contradiction to $i_1\in I_1$. Since $X$ is connected, $I_1$ must be empty. |
M. Schaller | 1 2 |
|
p. 14,
¶
Proof of second part of Lemma 1.19
|
It would be helpful to explain better why $X$ has only finitely many irreducible components. | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 15,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace ``Every open subset'' by ``Every subspace''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 15,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace ``Every closed subset'' by ``Every subspace''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 15,
¶
Second sentence of the proof of Lemma 1.25(3)
|
It should say "there would exist a minimal element $Z \in \mathscr M$". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 15,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace $\mathscr M$ by $\mathcal M$. | I. Tselepidis | 1 2 |
|
p. 15,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace "there existed" with "there would exist". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 16,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace $T_2-T_1^2$ by $T_1-T_2^2$. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 16,
¶
Line -13
|
Omit superfluous (. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 17,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "function" by "functions". | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line 9
|
In the diagram exchange $m$ and $n$. | J. Buck | 1 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "obtain the desired inverse homomorphism" by "obtain the desired inverse map", as Hom(X,Y) is just a set. | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line 14
|
Insert ``$A$'' after ``$k$-algebra''. | J. Buck | 1 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line 18
|
Add "contravariant" (or "opposite category of ..."). | Denis Vogel | 1 2 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace ``Proposition 1.20'' by ``Proposition 1.32''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 19,
¶
Line 11
|
In the definition of $f$ add the missing bracket at the end. | T. Przezdziecki | 1 |
|
p. 20,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace ``set morphisms'' by ``set of morphisms''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 20,
¶
Line -4 (Proof of Lemma 1.38)
|
The proof can be simplified: The closed subset $V(f_1g_2 - f_2g_1)$ contains the dense subset $U$, hence equals $X$, and that implies $f_1g_2 - f_2g_1 = 0$, as desired. | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 21,
¶
Line 12
|
Require $V$ to be non-empty. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 21,
¶
Line 8
|
Remove "of" in the sentence "how to identify elements of $f \in \mathscr O_X(U)$ with ..." | Mahdi Majidi-Zolbanin | 1 |
|
p. 21,
¶
Definition 1.39
|
An exception needs to be made if $U$ is the empty set. | Nick Mertes | 1 |
|
p. 22,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace $g\circ f$ with $g\circ f_{|f^{-1}(U)}$. | A.Graf | 1 |
|
p. 23,
¶
Line 15 (Def. 1.46 (2))
|
Replace ``finite covering'' by ``finite open covering''. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 23,
¶
Line -14
|
1.47 (i), "opposed category" should be "opposite category". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 23,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace ``manifolds'' by ``manifold''. | J. Buck | 1 |
|
p. 23,
¶
Prop. 1.48
|
Add the assumption that $X\ne \emptyset$ (or put this into the definition of prevariety?). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 23,
¶
Cor. 1.47 (i)
|
Exclude the zero $k$-algebra. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 24,
¶
Proof of Lemma 1.50
|
The reduction step in the first paragraph is superfluous because the rest of the proof shows that $D(f)$ and $Y$ are isomorphic spaces of functions. | Menachem Dov Mostowicz | 1 |
|
p. 25,
¶
Prop. 1.54
|
All the open subsets considered here, i.e., also $U'$ and $U$, $V$ in the final sentence, should be assumed to be non-empty. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 26,
¶
Prop. 1.56
|
Add that the inclusion $Z\to X$ is a morphism of prevarieties. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 26,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace $k$ by $R$. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 27,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace $R_n$ by $X_n$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 28,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace "space with function" with "space with functions". | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 28,
¶
Displayed equation in prop. 1.59
|
Replace ``exist'' by ``$\exists$''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 28,
¶
Line 13
|
The reason provided after the "as ..." is not related to this definition giving a topology (you will not need this in a verification of the axioms for a toplogy; it is the final topology wr.t. the inclusion maps for the U_i). Instead, it is the reason that the U_i are open in this topology. | Denis Vogel | 1 2 |
|
p. 29,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "space with function" with "space with functions". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 29,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace ``is then given by'' by ``is given abstractly by''. Furthermore, the map $K(U_i) \rightarrow K(U_j)$ maps $\frac{X_\ell}{X_i} \mapsto \frac{X_\ell}{X_j}\frac{X_j}{X_i} = \frac{X_\ell}{X_i}$. (I.e., as subfields of $K(X_0, \dots, X_n)$, the $K(U_i)$ all coincide, and coincide with $K(\mathbb P^n(k))$, and the isomorphism induced by our identifications is the identity map.) | M. Kaneda | 1 |
|
p. 29,
¶
Proof of Corollary 1.60
|
For the proof of the second assertion, i.e. $\mathbb{P}^n$ is a prevariety, one needs to show the connectedness of $\mathbb{P}^n$. But the book use part (2) of Lemma 1.19 (to show irreduciblity) which itself needs the connectedness! If connectedness is trivial, the second assertion of the Corollary 1.60 is proved and there is no need to speak about Lemma 1.19 and irreduciblity; and if connectedness is not trivial, then one cannot use the Lemma 1.19. To resolve this, one should make the reference to Lemma 1.19 more precise: Use part (1) to show that $\mathbb P^n(k)$ is connected (from the construction and previous discussion it is clear that any two of the standard charts have non-empty intersection.). Then irreducibility follows from part (2) (which needs the connectedness), but that was already noted as a general fact in Proposition 1.48. | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 29,
¶
Line 7
|
Add $g \ne 0$ in the description of the function field of $K({\mathbb P}^n(k))$. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 30,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace $f_m$ by $f_r$ at the end of the line. | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 30,
¶
Line -15
|
After "are again in a", add reference to Exercise 1.20 (b). | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 33,
¶
Line 21 and 22
|
Replace $\mathbb{P}_k^n$ by $\mathbb{P}^n(k)$. | E. Hong | 1 2 |
|
p. 33,
¶
Lines 4 and 6
|
Replace $\mathbb P^n$ with $\mathbb P^m$ and $\mathbb A^n$ with $\mathbb A^m$. | Safak Ozden | 1 |
|
p. 34,
¶
Line -5
|
Replace "function field" with "function fields". | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 34,
¶
Line -12 (Cor. 1.71)
|
Insert "be" before "quadrics". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 35,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "it" by ", the quadric of rank 3". | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 35,
¶
Figure 1.2
|
Replace $X^2+Y^2-1$ by $X^2+Y^2=1$ and $XY-1$ by $XY=1$. | A. B. Nguyen | 1 |
|
p. 35,
¶
Line 4
|
$r \gt 2$ (rather than: $r \gt 1$) | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 36,
¶
Exercise 1.8
|
The statement of the exercise is correct as it stands, but it does not illustrate the phenomenon that connectedness for the Zariski topology does not imply connectedness for the analytic topology. It should be replaced by: Show that the affine algebraic set $V(Y^2-X^3+X)\subset \mathbb A^2(k)$ is irreducible and in particular connected. Sketch the set $\{ (x, y)\in\mathbb R^2;\ y^2 = x^3-x\}$ and show that it is not connected with respect to the analytic topology on $\mathbb R^2$. |
Torsten Wedhorn/Alexey Beshenov | 1 |
|
p. 38,
¶
Exercise 1.21 (3)
|
Remove "in" in "The set of closed affine cones in $C\subseteq \mathbb A^{n+1}(k)$". | Menachem D. Mostowicz | 1 |
|
p. 38,
¶
Exercise 1.20 (a)
|
$x_1, \dots , x_n \in k$ should be $x_1, \dots, x_n \in K$. | Steven Jin | 1 2 |
|
p. 40,
¶
Line 15
|
"third point" should really say "second point" | S. Jin | 1 2 |
|
p. 40,
¶
9
|
Replace "of functions" by "with functions". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 41,
¶
7
|
Replace "with the category" by "to the category". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 44,
¶
Proposition 2.10
|
Replace ``Let $A$ be a ring.'' by ``Let $\varphi\colon A\rightarrow B$ be a ring homomorphism.''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 46,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace "$R$-module" by "an $R$-module". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 46,
¶
Line -14
|
It should say "non-equivalent"; i.e. the hyphen is missing. | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 48,
¶
Line -3 (def. 2.18.Sh2)
|
Replace "by (a)" with "by (Sh1)". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 48,
¶
Line 9
|
Add the ``category of abelian groups'' as the first example. | A. Kaučikas | 1 |
|
p. 50,
¶
Prop. 2.20
|
The basis B has to be closed under finite intersections for the (Sh) condition to be well-defined. (In Lemma 1.31 the notion of basis of topology is "defined", in passing, by requiring also that it is stable under finite intersections; but this appears to be non-standard terminology, so both places should be fixed.) | Florian Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 50,
¶
Section 2.6 Line 3
|
Maybe replace ``containment'' by ``reverse containment'' or state explicitly in which direction the order goes. | 1 | |
|
p. 51,
¶
Line 8
|
$\mathscr O(U)$ should be $\mathscr O_{\mathbb C}(U)$ | Ehsan Shahoseini | 1 2 |
|
p. 51,
¶
Line $-2$
|
Replace $s^x$ by ${s^x}_{|V_x}$. | A. Graf | 1 |
|
p. 51,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace ``if and only of'' by ``if and only if''. | J. Watterlond | 1 |
|
p. 53,
¶
Line -2
|
Since $f^{-1}$ includes sheafification by definition, the restriction $\mathscr G_{|X}$ to an open subspace in this sense coincides with Example 2.19 (1) only if $\mathscr G$ is a sheaf. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 54,
¶
(2.8.2) and (2.8.3)
|
In the book, (2.8.3) is deduced from (2.8.2).
However, it is not clear, how (2.8.2) can be proved without using either (2.8.3) or Proposition 2.27, so either the order should be changed, or further details on the proof of (2.8.2) should be added.
Indeed, (2.8.3) can be proved without using (2.8.2) by noting that $(f^{-1}\mathcal{G})_x \cong (f^+ \mathcal{G})_x = \varinjlim_{x \in V} (f^+ \mathcal{G})(V) = \varinjlim_{x \in V} \varinjlim_{f(V) \subseteq U} \mathcal{G}(U) = \varinjlim_{f(x) \in U} \mathcal{G}(U) = \mathcal{G}_{f(x)},$ where the first isomorphism is due to Proposition 2.24(1). Given the above, we can deduce (2.8.2) from (2.8.3): First note that it suffices to prove that $f^{-1}(g^+ \mathcal{H}) \cong f^{-1}(g^{-1} \mathcal{H})$, then observe that the induced stalk maps are isomorphisms by (2.8.3) and Proposition 2.24(1), thus (2.8.2) follows from Proposition 2.23(2). (See also Math StackExchange.) |
A. Graf / L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 54,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace ``sheaves'' by ``presheaves''. | J. Watterlond | 1 |
|
p. 54,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace ``$X$'' by ``$Y$''. | K. Mohri | 1 |
|
p. 54,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace ``$f(V)$'' by ``$f(U)$''. | K. Mohri | 1 |
|
p. 54,
¶
Proof of Prop. 2.27
|
Introducing the element $t$ could be avoided. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 55,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace ``statements'' by ``statement''. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 55,
¶
Line 2 (Remark 2.28)
|
The assumption on $\psi$ should be that it is a morphism of presheaves. | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 55,
¶
Line -13
|
Insert "$U$" after "open subset". | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 55,
¶
9
|
Replace "limit" by "inductive limit". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 58,
¶
Proof of Thm. 2.33
|
In the proof, you write: ``As $D(f)$ is quasi-compact, we can assume that $I$ is finite.'' Indeed, this works for condition (1); however, it is less trivial for (2). Of course, the strategy of proof (i.e., reducing to the case of finite $I$) is successful, but I do think that this deserves an explanation. The key step is to note that any finite subcovering $D(f) = \bigcup_{i \in I} D(f_i) = \bigcup_{j=1}^k D(f_{i_j})$ (where $I$ is possibly infinite) gives rise to a finite subcovering $D(f_l) = \bigcup_{j=1}^k D(f_{i_j}) \cap D(f_l) = \bigcup_{j=1}^k D(f_{i_j} \cdot f_l)$ for every $l \in I$, and then to apply (1). | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 58,
¶
Line -2
|
The third sum should be over the index set $I$ instead of $J$. | Sebastian Schlegel Mejia | 1 |
|
p. 60,
¶
Line -9
|
Exclude $f=0$ here. | Philipp Reichenbach | 1 2 |
|
p. 60,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "$f\in A$" by "$f\in A\setminus \{0\}$". | Harmeet Singh | 1 2 |
|
p. 61,
¶
Lines -3, -2
|
Replace ``$\mathfrak a$'' by ``$\mathfrak a_1$'' and ``$\mathfrak b$'' by ``$\mathfrak a_2$''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 61,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace $i^\flat_x$ by $i^\sharp_x$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 62,
¶
Exercise 2.3 line 2
|
Change "every open subset" to "every non empty open subset" | Vishal Gupta | 1 |
|
p. 62,
¶
Line -18
|
Insert "is" before "the complement". | Philipp Reichenbach | 1 2 |
|
p. 63,
¶
Exercise 2.13
|
In property (i), add the requirement that $\mathscr F(\emptyset)$ is a set with one element. | Louis Martini | 1 |
|
p. 63,
¶
Exercise 2.9 (b), line 1
|
Make it clearer that the reference points to Section (B.13), not to Def. B.13. | Viktor Tabakov | 1 |
|
p. 63,
¶
Line 8 (ex. 2.9 (d))
|
Replace "elements of $u \in A$" with "elements $u \in R$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 63,
¶
Exer. 2.13 (b)
|
The assumption that $X$ be connected can be omitted. | A. Beshenov | 1 |
|
p. 64,
¶
Line 19 (Exercise 2.16)
|
Replace "show an analogous results" by "show that an analogous result holds". | 1 | |
|
p. 64,
¶
Exer. 2.15
|
The assumption that $X$ be locally compact is superfluous. | V. Paškūnas | 1 2 |
|
p. 64,
¶
Ex.~2.14 (c)
|
The condition that $Z$ is locally connected is not sufficient. It should be replaced by the condition that every point in the closure of $Z$ has a fundamental system of open neighborhoods which intersect $Z$ in a connected set. | J. Calabrese | 1 |
|
p. 65,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "subset" by "open subset". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 67,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace ``constitute homomorphism'' by ``constitute a homomorphism''. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 67,
¶
Prop.+Def. 3.2 (2)
|
Note that the affine open subschemes are not closed under finite intersections. This is inconsistent with the notion of a basis of a topology "defined" in Lemma 1.31. | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 68,
¶
|
Use consistent terminology: ``principal open'' or ``principally open'' subset. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 69,
¶
10
|
Replace "(or more" by ". More". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 70,
¶
Prop. 3.8
|
Add a reference to Exer. 2.18. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 70,
¶
Prop. 3.10
|
Add a reference to Exer. 2.16. (And/or odd a reference to Prop. 3.10 to the exercise.) | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 70,
¶
Line -5
|
Replace "with an open subscheme of $T_i$" by "with an open subscheme $T_i$ of $T$". | E. Hong | 1 2 |
|
p. 71,
¶
Example 3.12
|
Replace ``$\prod_{i=1}^n A_i$'' by ``$\mathop{\rm Spec}\prod_{i=1}^n A_i$''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 71,
¶
Line 18
|
$U \subseteq \psi_i(U_i) \cap \psi_j(U_j)$ (rather than: $U \subseteq U_i \cap U_j$) | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 71,
¶
3rd paragraph in the proof
|
$\mathcal{O}_{U_{ij}}(U)$ is not well--defined. Instead, one could write: ``$\ldots$ then we identify $$\mathcal{O}_{U_i}(\psi_i^{-1}(U)) = \mathcal{O}_{U_{ij}}(\psi_i^{-1}(U)) \cong (\varphi_{ij})_*\mathcal{O}_{U_{ji}}(\psi_i^{-1}(U)) = \mathcal{O}_{U_{ji}}(\varphi_{ij}^{-1}\psi_i^{-1}(U))) $$ $$ = \mathcal{O}_{U_{ji}}(\psi_j^{-1}(U)) = \mathcal{O}_{U_j}(\psi_j^{-1}(U))$$ via $\varphi_{ij}$.'' | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 71,
¶
Last line of the proof
|
Replace ``$X = \bigcup U_i$'' by ``$X = \bigcup_{i \in I} \psi_i(U_i)$''. | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 72,
¶
Line -9
|
Exchange the indices $\frac{X_i}{X_j}$ and $\frac{X_j}{X_i}$, and reverse the direction of the arrow. | F. Grelak, A. Elashry | 1 |
|
p. 73,
¶
15
|
Replace ``subset'' by ``a subset''. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 74,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace the reference to Section (4.14) by a reference to Section (4.13). | N.T. | 1 2 |
|
p. 76,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace ``ideals'' by ``ideal''. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 77,
¶
Proof of Prop. 3.27 (2)
|
At this point in the proof, $X$ is not yet assumed to be affine. But $V(f)$ has only been defined in the affine setting until this point in the book. So it might be worth noting that $V(f)$ denotes the set of $x\in X$ where $f(x)=0$ in the sense of the penultimate paragraph of p.57. This is a closed subset of $X$ by Ex. 2.19. (Later in the book, $X_f$ is reintroduced on p.187, without reference to Ex. 2.19). | Denis Vogel | 1 2 |
|
p. 77,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace ``scheme'' by ``non-empty scheme''. | M. Jarden | 1 |
|
p. 78,
¶
Prop. 3.29 (3)
|
Add the assumption that all $U_i$ are non-empty. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 78,
¶
End of proof of Prop. 3.29(3)
|
It might be worthwile to spell out the argument of Example 2.37 more explicitly. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 78,
¶
Prop. 3.29(2)
|
The "$V$" appearing in the statement of (2) is not related to the "$V$" introduced in the proof of (2). | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Proof of Lemma 3.32, second paragraph
|
Replace "the $f_i$ generated the" by "the $f_i$ generate the". | L. P. | 1 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Line -1 (Proof of Prop 3.33)
|
Replace "(1)" with "(i)" , "(2)" with "(ii)" and "(3)" with "(iii)". | R.Ishizuka | 1 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "if follows" with "it follows". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Proof of Prop. 3.33
|
Replace the beginning of the first sentence by "If $x\in X$ and if $U={\rm Spec} A$ is an affine open neighborhood of $x$, then $x$ is closed in $U$ and corresponds to ..." | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Proposition 3.33
|
It might be worthwile to aim for a consistent notation for algebraically closed vs. not necessarily algebraically closed fields (e.g., $k$ versus $K$). | V. Gupta | 1 |
|
p. 79,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace ``locally finite type'' by ``locally of finite type''. | J. Watterlond | 1 |
|
p. 80,
¶
Corollary 3.36
|
Make it more explicit that $k=\kappa(x)$ means that the natural homomorphism $k\rightarrow\kappa(x)$ is an isomorphism (rather than just the existence of any isomorphism between these two fields). | V Gupta | 1 |
|
p. 81,
¶
Line 11, line 21
|
"Definition 1.15" should be replaced with "Definition 1.46". In line 21, replace "is the sense" by "in the sense". | Alexander Isaev | 1 |
|
p. 81,
¶
10
|
Replace "opposed category" by "opposite category". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 81,
¶
Proof of Thm. 3.37
|
The point that $X(k)$ is connected should be addressed explicitly. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 82,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace ``points'' by ``type''. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 82,
¶
Line -21
|
Add index $i$ to the second intersection. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 83,
¶
Line -8
|
Replace "$j_*\mathscr O_Y$" by "$(j_*\mathscr O_Y)_{|U}$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 84,
¶
Def. 3.41 (1)
|
The definition of closed subscheme is not ideal, because it does not become sufficiently clear when two closed subschemes are equal. It would be better to say that a closed subscheme is given by a closed subset $Z\subseteq X$ together with an ideal sheaf $\mathscr J\subseteq \mathscr O_X$ such that certain properties hold. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 85,
¶
Line -17
|
Replace ``biggest'' by ``largest''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 85,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace "$\varphi(g)|U$" with "$\varphi(g)_{|U}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 85,
¶
Proof of Thm. 3.42, Condition (2)
|
Omit ``and $x \not\in U_i$ for all $i$'' (this is neither (a priori) possible in general, e.g. if $X$ is irreducible and $x$ its generic point, nor necessary in the sequel of the proof). | B. Heintz | 1 |
|
p. 86,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace "Remark 3.45" by "Example 3.45". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 88,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace "ordered set" by "partially ordered set". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 88,
¶
3rd line of the proof of Prop. 3.52
|
Replace "on" by "in" in the sentence "[...] $Z$ is closed on $U$". | 1 | |
|
p. 90,
¶
Line 21
|
Replace "component" by "components". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 90,
¶
Ex. 3.14
|
Add the assumption that the maximal ideal of $A$ is the union of all prime ideals properly contained in it. See Knaf's answer to this question on MathOverflow. | B. Heintz | 1 |
|
p. 90,
¶
Exercise 3.13
|
$X$ should be nonempty. | 1 | |
|
p. 90,
¶
Ex. 3.19
|
The set $(R^{n+1}\setminus\{0\})/R^\times$ must be replaced by the set $M/R^\times$, where $M\subset R^{n+1}$ denotes the subset of all tuples which have at least one entry in $R^\times$. | B. Heintz | 1 |
|
p. 90,
¶
Exercise 3.19
|
Replace ${\rm Hom}({\rm Spec}(R), \mathbb P^n_R)$ by ${\rm Hom}_{R}({\rm Spec}(R), \mathbb P^n_R)$ to make explicit that we only consider $R$-morphisms here. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 91,
¶
Exercise 3.26(a)
|
The statement is true for $V = X$, but not in general. (E.g., take $Y= \mathbb A^1_k$, $U=\mathbb A^1_k\setminus \{0\}$, $I=\{1, 2\}$, $i=1$, $V=U_2\subseteq X$.) | Paulo Lima-Filho | 1 2 |
|
p. 92,
¶
Line -5
|
Replace ``shows'' by ``show''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 93,
¶
Line -9
|
Insert "=" before $f_m(x)$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 94,
¶
Line -3 (ex. 4.5)
|
Replace "Equivalent" with "Equivalently". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 94,
¶
Example 4.4
|
Conflict of notation: $T$. | E. Viehmann | 1 |
|
p. 94,
¶
Example 4.5
|
Insert: ``Let $\pi\colon R[T_1,\dots, T_n]\rightarrow R$ be the projection mapping each $T_i$ to $0$.'' after the definition of the $a_i$. | P. Zsifkovits/F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 95,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace "objects" with "object". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 95,
¶
Corollary 4.7
|
Replace "$S$-morphism of schemes" by "morphism of $S$-schemes", the notion of $S$-morphism is only introduced later on. (Or define $S$-morphisms in (3.1).) | Lam Pham | 1 |
|
p. 95,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "for all objects Y we are given an in $Y$ functorial map" by "for all objects $Y$ we are given a map [...] functorial in $Y$"? | Lam Pham | 1 |
|
p. 96,
¶
Remark 4.9
|
In the displayed line, it should say "$x \mapsto x^r$". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 97,
¶
Definition 4.10
|
Add the condition that $f \circ p = g \circ q$. | C. Frei | 1 |
|
p. 100,
¶
Last sentence of part (i) in the proof of Theorem 4.18
|
It should say "$f = p \circ h$ and $g = q \circ h$"; i.e. it should be = instead of := | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 100,
¶
-9
|
"are morphisms" should be replaced by "be morphisms". | Kuo Tzu-Ang | 1 |
|
p. 101,
¶
Prop. 4.20, condition (I)
|
The proof of the proposition when condition (I) holds uses the fact that all the assertions can be checked locally. However, to pass to the affine situation, one also needs to know that for every open neighborhood $U''$ of $f(x')$ contained in $U'$, $f^{-1}(U'')$ is also quasi-compact. This is true (Prop. 10.1) but had not been stated at this point. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 101,
¶
Prop. 4.20, Condition (I)
|
Replace ``affine neighborhood $U'$ of $x'$'' by ``affine neighborhood $U'$ of $f(x')$''. | B. Heintz | 1 |
|
p. 101,
¶
Line -7
|
In the statement of Prop. 4.20, maybe it should be made clearer that the assumptions (I) and (II) should refer to each factor of $f$, namely if $f=f_r\cdots f_1$, then each $f_i$ should satisfy one of the assumptions (I) and (II) (not $f$ itself). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 102,
¶
Proof of Prop. 4.20, Case (II)
|
To see that $(p^{-1}(f(X')), \mathscr O_{Z|p^{-1}(f(X'))})$ is a fiber product in the category of schemes, one needs to know that the fiber product of schemes taken in the category of locally ringed spaces exists and is a scheme. This stronger version of Thm. 4.18 should have been stated and proved before. It is proved similarly as Thm. 4.18; for the affine case use Proposition 3.4 in the form given (but not proved) in the book. | O. Körner | 1 |
|
p. 102,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace "homomorphisms" by "homomorphism" (... "is injective"). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 104,
¶
4.24 (Frobenius morphism)
|
Conflict of notation: There are too many $f$'s here, $f\in \Gamma(U, \mathscr O_S)$ in line 2, the morphism $f\colon X\to S$, the polynomial $f$ in (1). | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 104,
¶
Line 13
|
Add "Let" before "$X$ and $Y$ be". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 104,
¶
Line -13
|
The numbering "Frobenius morphism 4.24" here is a bit inconsistent, and confusing when referred to later - better replace by "Definition 4.24 (The Frobenius morphism)". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 104,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace ``be'' by ``by''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 105,
¶
Line 2 ff.
|
Rename the variables as $T_i$ since the symbol $X$ is in use already. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 105,
¶
Eqn. (4.7.1)
|
The label of the lower arrow should be $(t, h)_S$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 105,
¶
Line -6
|
Insert ``be'' before ``the first projection''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 106,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace ``(applied to $X, S, X' = \mathop{\rm Spec} \kappa(s), Y=S$)'' by ``(applied to $S, X = S, X' = \mathop{\rm Spec} \kappa(s), Y=X$)''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 106,
¶
Line -2
|
Add missing parenthesis. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 107,
¶
Line 20 (proof of prop. 4.30)
|
Replace "$(f \times_S id_Y)\circ (id_X \times_S g)$" with "$(f \times_S id_Y)\circ (id_{X'} \times_S g)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 107,
¶
Line -10 (def. 4.31)
|
Replace "morphism of $f\colon X\rightarrow S$ of $S$-schemes" by "morphism $f\colon X\rightarrow S$ of schemes". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 108,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "locally" by "local". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 108,
¶
Proof of Prop. 4.32
|
Replace second sentence by: ``Proposition 4.20 shows that the properties immersion, open immersion and closed immersion are stable under base change (see the discussion at the beginning of (4.11)).'' | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 108,
¶
Line -6 (prop. 4.34)
|
Replace "immersion" with "immersions". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 109,
¶
-14
|
Strictly speaking, $f^{–1}(Z)$ should be $f^{–1}(i(Z))$. | Jan Willing | 1 |
|
p. 111,
¶
Line -7
|
It might be worthwile to add a few words on the construction of $f$ as a morphism of schemes. (Formally, one has to cover $Z$ by affine charts, and glue the morphisms obtained on these charts. At this point in the book, it might be asking too much from the reader to skip this point.) | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 111,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace ``$g(a)$'' by ``$g(a)=0$''. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 111,
¶
Line -4
|
The fiber product of the two projective spaces should be $\times_R$ instead of $\times_S$. | Jingyi Xu | 1 2 |
|
p. 112,
¶
Line -4
|
Add parentheses around $U_i\times_R W_j$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 113,
¶
Line -8
|
Add reference to Cor. 4.7. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 113,
¶
(4.15.1)
|
The top morphism of the commutative diagram in the middle should be "${\rm id}_G \times_S e$" instead of "$({\rm id}, e)_S$". | Jan Willing | 1 2 |
|
p. 113,
¶
Line -4
|
Replace "as $S$-scheme" by "as an $S$-scheme". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 117,
¶
Line 15 (Exercise 4.21)
|
The first line "... let $f\colon \mathbb A^1_k \to k$ the structure morphism." should read "... let $f\colon\mathbb A^1_k \to k$ be the structure morphism." | Thomas Brazelton | 1 |
|
p. 118,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace "arbitrary morphism" with "arbitrary morphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 120,
¶
l. 9
|
Replace "Corollary 3.33" by "Proposition 3.33". | M. Pereira | 1 |
|
p. 121,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace $\mathfrak p_0$ by $\mathfrak p_0 A[T]$, and correspondingly for $\mathfrak p_r$. | P. Zsifkovits | 1 |
|
p. 123,
¶
Proposition 5.11 (i)
|
Add '.' at the end. | 1 2 | |
|
p. 124,
¶
Lines -3, -2 (Remark 5.16 (3))
|
It should be made clear that we are talking about the numbers $h(i)$ of the previous theorem here, for the chain of ideals given by the $Z_i$. (At least, rename the $\mathfrak p_i$ as $\mathfrak a_i$; or state the relationship more explicitly). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 124,
¶
Line -9
|
Add "the" before "following". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 124,
¶
Line 18 (Proof of Lemma 5.14)
|
Replace "finite-dimension" by "finite-dimensional". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 125,
¶
Thm. 5.19 (2)
|
Change (a) to (1). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 125,
¶
Line 21
|
Replace "completed to maximal chain" by "completed to a maximal chain". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 126,
¶
Theorem 5.22
|
Replace "of finite type" with "locally of finite type". (This slightly more general statement is used in the proof of Proposition 5.26, for example.) Note that the proof does not use the finiteness of the affine open cover. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 126,
¶
Proof of Prop. 5.20
|
Replace the last sentence by: Corollary 5.17 shows that the structure morphism $X\rightarrow \mathop{\rm Spec} k$ corresponds to a finite homomorphism $k\rightarrow A$. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 126,
¶
Prop. 5.22 (4)
|
It would be enough to assume that $X$ and $Y$ are locally of finite type over $k$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 127,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace "$\sup_{Z\in I} (Z\cap U)$" with "$\sup_{Z\in I} \dim(Z\cap U)$" | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 128,
¶
Line -12
|
Since $d$ is never refered to, its definition in the statement of Prop. 5.30 should be removed. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 130,
¶
Proof of Cor. 5.33
|
Since the formulation "vanishes identically" has not been formally defined, it would be clearer to replace "in which case" by "i.e.,". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 130,
¶
Line 4
|
The notion of finite scheme morphism is not defined at this point, one should talk about the corresponding ring homomorphism instead. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 133,
¶
Line 15
|
Better: "... where $S$ is the spectrum of a field $k$ and $X$ is of finite type over $k$." | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 133,
¶
Cor. 5.45
|
Add the hypothesis that $Y$ be non-empty. | 1 | |
|
p. 134,
¶
Line -4
|
It should be explained why $\bar{x}$ is closed in $X_K$. The point $\bar{x}$ is a point of the fiber $p^{-1}(x) = \mathop{\rm Spec} \kappa(x)\otimes_k K$. We now use Proposition 3.33. Since the extension $\kappa(x)/k$ is finite, $\kappa(x)\otimes_k K$ is a finite-dimensional $K$-vector space. This implies that the residue class field of $\bar{x}$ (which is a quotient of this tensor product) is finite over $K$. Hence $\bar{x}$ is a closed point of $X_K$. (A variant of the argument: Since $\kappa(x)\otimes_k K$ is finite over $K$, it is an Artin ring, hence the fiber $p^{-1}(x)$ has dimension $0$. Therefore $\bar{x}$ is a closed point of the fiber. Since $x$ is closed in $X$, $p^{-1}(x)$ is closed in $X_K$. Altogether we see that $\bar{x}$ is closed in $X_K$.) | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 134,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace ``$X=\mathop{\rm Spec} B$'' by ``$Y=\mathop{\rm Spec} B$''. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 134,
¶
Line -15
|
It might be clearer to move this remark up so that it comes directly after the proof of Corollary 5.45. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 134,
¶
Proof of Cor. 5.47
|
Note that the first statement in the proof holds by Cor. 5.23. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 135,
¶
Line -2
|
The reference to Proposition B.97 is not required at this point and should be omitted (our definition of separability B.91 (6) is exactly what is needed here). | Jinyong / U.G. | 1 2 |
|
p. 137,
¶
Cor. 5.56 (2), (3)
|
Insert "then" before $X_K$ (twice). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 137,
¶
Proof of Prop. 5.53
|
In the proof of (iv) $\Rightarrow$ (iii), further details should be added about the construction of the scheme $Y'$. To define $Y'$, one applies gluing of schemes (Prop. 3.10) to the family of schemes $U_i := {\rm Spec} (A_i\otimes k')/(f_{ij})$ (this is a different $U_i$ than in the proof of 5.53; I use $U_i$ here to indicate how Prop. 3.10 is applied), and $U_{ij} = U_i \cap {\rm Spec} (A_j \otimes k')$ (scheme-theoretic intersection inside $X\otimes k'$). To construct a complete gluing datum, one has to show that $U_{ij} = U_{ji}$ as closed subschemes of ${\rm Spec} (A_i\otimes k') \cap {\rm Spec} (A_j\otimes k')$. (Since these identifications are (basically) equalities, it is clear that the cocycle condition of a gluing datum is satisfied, so that Prop. 3.10 can be applied.) By construction, it is clear that the desired equality holds after base change to $\Omega$, i.e., that $U_{ij}\otimes_{k'}\Omega = U_{ji}\otimes_{k'}\Omega$. It therefore suffices to prove the following general statement: Let $Z$ be a scheme over a field $k'$, let $\Omega / k'$ be a field extension and let $Z_1, Z_2$ be closed subschemes of $Z$ such that $Z_1 \otimes_{k'} \Omega = Z_2 \otimes_{k'} \Omega$ (as closed subschemes of $Z\otimes \Omega$). Then $Z_1 = Z_2$. To prove this statement, it is enough to show that $Z_1\subseteq Z_2$ and that $Z_2\subseteq Z_1$, or in other words that the inclusions $Z_1\cap Z_2 \subseteq Z_i$ (for $i=1,2$) are equalities. With this observation, one easily reduces to the case that $Z_2 \subseteq Z_1$ (replace $Z_2$ by $Z_1\cap Z_2$, and apply the statement again with the roles of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ reversed). Furthermore, one may work locally on $Z$, so that we may assume that $Z$ is affine, say $Z = {\rm Spec} A$. Then the closed subschemes correspond to ideals $\mathfrak a_1 \subseteq \mathfrak a_2 \subseteq A$ such that $\mathfrak a_1 \otimes \Omega = \mathfrak a_2 \otimes \Omega$ (inside $A\otimes \Omega$). This implies that $(\mathfrak a_2 / \mathfrak a_2) \otimes \Omega = 0$, so $\mathfrak a_2 / \mathfrak a_1 = 0$ (base change by a field extension preserves the vector space dimension), and we get $\mathfrak a_1 = \mathfrak a_2$, as desired. |
Jin Yong / U.G. | 1 2 |
|
p. 138,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace "roughly spoken" by "roughly speaking". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 140,
¶
Proof of Lemma 5.62
|
It would be helpful to add a reference to equation (4.12.4). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 140,
¶
Line 15
|
It is clearer to write $A\otimes_kK = \Gamma(C_K\cap D_K, \mathscr O_{C_K\cap D_K})$ (so to make use of the calculation in the previous line). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 140,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace $\bigoplus$ by $\bigoplus_d$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 140,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace $af+bg$ by $af+bg=0$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 142,
¶
Exer. 5.6
|
The assumption that $f$ is closed is required only for part (a). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 142,
¶
Line -14 (ex. 5.11)
|
In the definition of the special orthogonal group scheme SO, the condition that the determinant must be +1 is missing. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 142,
¶
Exer. 5.8 (b)
|
Replace $\mathop{\rm codim}(Y, X)$ by $\mathop{\rm codim}\nolimits_X(Y)$ etc. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 142,
¶
Exercise 5.7
|
Before the first ``Show'', add ``Let $X=\mathop{\rm Spec} A[T]$.'' | A. Steinbach | 1 |
|
p. 143,
¶
Line -6 (ex. 5.20)
|
Replace "$x\in X_{\Omega}$" with "$x' \in X_{\Omega}$" | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 144,
¶
Line 10 (ex. 5.21)
|
Replace "intgral" with "integral". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 146,
¶
l. $-8$
|
Replace ``heuristics'' by ``heuristic''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 147,
¶
Line 13
|
It would be more precise to say "cardinality of any minimal generating set" (rather than "... a minimal ..."). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 147,
¶
Example 6.3 (3)
|
Maybe explain that the finiteness conditions are imposed to ensure that the construction (and passing to the dual vector space, resp.) is compatible with the tensor product. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 147,
¶
Line -4
|
Add subscript $k$ (twice). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 148,
¶
Line -10
|
$D(g_1 \cdots g_s)$ should instead read $D(g_1 \cdots g_r)$. | Nathan Pflueger | 1 |
|
p. 148,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "homomorphisms" by "local homomorphisms". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 148,
¶
Line 14
|
Label the final arrow with $df_x$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 149,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace "projection $X(k[\varepsilon])\to X(k)$" by "map $X(k[\varepsilon])\to X(k)$ induced by the projection $k[\varepsilon]\to k$, $\varepsilon\mapsto 0$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 149,
¶
Lines -8, -7
|
Remove "is in $T_x X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 150,
¶
Prop. 6.10 (1)
|
One should choose a representative $x = (x_0,\dots, x_n)\in \mathbb A^{n+1}_k(k)$ of the point of interest to start with in order to obtain a natural isomorphism between the two sides, because the isomorphism will depend on this choice. See also Section (8.9) (and Section (17.7) in Volume II for a relative version). | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 150,
¶
Line -1
|
Replace the reference to Section (4.14) by a reference to Section (4.13). | Dominik Briganti | 1 2 |
|
p. 152,
¶
Line 22
|
Replace "isoomorphism" by "isomorphism". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 152,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace "$k$-scheme" by "$K$-scheme". | Dominik Briganti | 1 2 |
|
p. 152,
¶
Lines 1, 2
|
It should be added that here ${\rm Spec}(K[\varepsilon])$ is considered as an $S$-scheme via the composition ${\rm Spec}(K[\varepsilon])\to{\rm Spec}(K)\to S$, where the first morphism is the one coresponding to the inclusion $K\subset K[\varepsilon]$. | Ho Hai Phung | 1 2 |
|
p. 153,
¶
Def. 6.14 (1)
|
It might be helpful to add that requiring that $j$ is a morphism of $R$-schemes amounts to saying that the composition of $j$ with the projection to $\mathop{\rm Spec}(R)$ is $f$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 153,
¶
Def. 6.14 (1)
|
Conflict of notation: $j$ is used for the map and as an index. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 153,
¶
Def. 6.14 (2)
|
Replace ``in all points'' by ``at all points''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 154,
¶
Line -17
|
Replace "a $r\times r$ minor" by "an $(n-d)\times (n-d)$ minor" as $r$ is not defined in Definition 6.14. | Jan Willing | 1 2 |
|
p. 154,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace "for $X$" by "for $f$". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 155,
¶
Prop. 6.18
|
Add that $g$ is monic. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 155,
¶
Part (3) (Line 8)
|
Add the condition that $k$ has characteristic $\ne 2$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 155,
¶
Part (4) (Line 10)
|
Add the condition that $k$ has characteristic $\ne 2$. Also, to see that for $f$ with multiple zeros the given scheme is not smooth, it seems that one wants to invoke (the relevant part of) Theorem 6.28. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 156,
¶
Proof of Thm. 6.19
|
The final part of the proof can be simplified: The polynomial $g$ being a $p$-th power is already a contradiction to the irreducibility as a polynomial in $T_{d+1}$. Alternatively, and this seems even simpler, it is enough to consider $\partial g/\partial T_{d+1}$ rather than all the partial derivatives. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 156,
¶
Prop. 6.21, end of proof
|
The second half of the proof (starting from "Replacing $X$ by $U$ ...") should be replaced by the following (in the current "proof", evaluating $g$ at $T_i=0$ ($i=1, \dots, d$) might not produce a separable polynomial; also, after applying Prop. 6.18, since this gives only an isomorphism between dense opens, it is not enough to show that $\Sigma$ is non-empty): As $X$ is geometrically reduced, its function field is a separable extension of $k$ (Proposition 5.49). By Proposition 6.18 we may assume that $X={\rm Spec}(B)$, where $B=k[T_1, \dots, T_{d+1}]/(g)$ for a separable monic irreducible polynomial $g\in k(T_1, \dots, T_d)[T_{d+1}]$ with coefficients in $k[T_1,\dots, T_d]$. We have a finite morphism ${\rm Spec}(B) \to \mathbb A^d_k = {\rm Spec}(k[T_1, \dots, T_d])$. The subset of points $z\in\mathbb A^d_k$ such that the image $\overline{g}$ of $g$ in $\kappa(z)[T_{d+1}]$ is non-separable is the vanishing locus of the discriminant of the polynomial $g$, hence a Zariski closed subset. Since $g$ is separable over $k(T_1, \dots, T_d)$ it does not contain the generic point, so its complement $V$ is open and dense. Whenever $z\in U$, the fiber of the above morphism over $z$ is ${\rm Spec}(\kappa(z)[T_{d+1}]/(\overline{g}))$, a product of separable extensions of $k$ (since $\overline{g}$ might not be irreducible over $\kappa(z)$, we might have more than one factor). (It might be useful to add a few more words about the discriminant, maybe in App. B.) |
Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 157,
¶
Proof of Prop. 6.23
|
Instead of ``renumbering the $f_i$'', we need to renumber the $T_i$ such that the $(r \times r)$ minor given by the first $r$ columns of $J$ does not vanish at $x$. | B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 157,
¶
Statement of Lemma 6.22
|
Replace $\partial\varphi(Y_j)$ by $\partial\varphi(Y_i)$ and $\partial X_i$ by $\partial X_j$. | B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 159,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace $T_{\mathbb A^n_k, y}$ by $T_{\mathbb A^n_k, y}^*$. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 159,
¶
Proof of Lemma 6.27
|
In the second line of the proof, replace ``columns'' by ``rows''. | B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 159,
¶
Proof of Lemma 6.26
|
Replace ``By Example 6.5'' by ``By the argument in Example 6.5'' and/or add explanation why we obtain the desired linear independence over $\kappa(y)$ even though $y$ might not be a $k$-valued point. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 160,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace "point of $x$" with "point of $X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 160,
¶
Corollary 6.29
|
Replace ``of finite type'' by ``locally of finite type''. (Theorem 5.22 requires only ``locally of finite type'' as noted in a previous erratum.) | Fabian Roll | 1 |
|
p. 161,
¶
Line 3 of Example 6.34
|
Change $\cdots Spec(\mathbb{F}_p(T)\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p[T^p]} \mathbb{F}_p(T))$ to $\cdots Spec(\mathbb{F}_p(T)\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_p(T^p)} \mathbb{F}_p(T))$. | Shaopeng Z | 1 |
|
p. 161,
¶
Lines 4, 5 (cor. 6.31)
|
The two ranks in the statement of the corollary should be of the Jacobian matrix evaluated at $x$: replace "$\partial g_i / \partial T_j$" by "$\frac{\partial g_i}{\partial T_j}(x)$" (twice). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 162,
¶
Last sentence of the proof of Lemma 6.38
|
It should say "every non-empty closed subset". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 162,
¶
Remark 6.37
|
Replace the final sentence of the remark by: If a point in an arbitrary scheme lies on more than one irreducible component, then its local ring will have more than one minimal prime ideal and hence cannot be an integral domain. In particular, such a point is not normal. | U. Hartl/B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 163,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace "Exercise 6.19" by Exercise "6.18". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 163,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace ``$\dim {\mathscr O}_{X,x} = 2$'' by ``$\dim {\mathscr O}_{X,x} \geq 2$''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 165,
¶
Line 17 (ex. 6.4)
|
Replace "$df_{(e,e)}$" with "$dm_{(e,e)}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 165,
¶
Line 21 (Exer. 6.4)
|
Replace $df$ by $df_e$. | Jan Willing | 1 |
|
p. 166,
¶
Exercise 6.12 (b) (iii)
|
Condition (iii) should be changed to: "$X \cong \coprod_i {\rm Spec}(K_i)$, where $K_i$ are finite separable field extensions of $k$." (Alternatively, add the assumption that $X$ is quasi-compact in the beginning.) | Rafael M. Saavedra | 1 2 |
|
p. 166,
¶
Line 7
|
Insert "be" before "the set". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 169,
¶
Lines 7, 14
|
Wrong quotation marks around "globalizations" and "sheaf version". | Zhaodong Cai | 1 |
|
p. 170,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace "for all $s,s' \in \mathscr{F}(U)$" by "for all $s,s' \in \mathscr{F}_1(U)$". | Yubo Zhou | 1 2 |
|
p. 170,
¶
Equation (7.1.1)
|
Add the notation $\mathscr F(x)$ and $s(x)$ to the Index of Symbols in the end. | Philipp Reichenbach | 1 2 |
|
p. 170,
¶
Line -12
|
Somewhere (maybe after Example 7.2) add a sentence like "If $\mathscr A$ is a presheaf of rings and $\mathscr F$ is a presheaf of abelian groups with an $\mathscr A$-module structure (as presheaves), then the sheafification of $\mathscr F$ is a sheaf of modules over the sheafification of $\mathscr A$, because sheafification is compatible with products. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 171,
¶
Line -3
|
Wrong quotation marks around "surjective". | Zhaodong Cai | 1 |
|
p. 171,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace "homomorphism" with "homomorphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 171,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace $\mathscr O$ by $\mathscr O_X$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 171,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace "of an $\mathscr O_X$-module" by "of an $\mathscr O_X$-module $\mathscr F$". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 175,
¶
Line -5
|
In addition to $s^{\otimes n}$, the notation $s\otimes t$ should also be defined (a couple of lines above). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 175,
¶
Around line -7
|
Add that the tensor product is associative (up to canonical isomorphism) and that one can similarly form tensor products of more than two factors (with the same result as taking successive tensor products). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 175,
¶
Line 3
|
Add period at the end of the sentence. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 175,
¶
Line -3
|
Maybe the tensor symbols $\otimes$ should be accompanied by O_X(U) as a subscript. | Victor Zhang | 1 |
|
p. 176,
¶
Line 4
|
A more appropriate reference than (7.1) is Section (7.3), specifically the comment after equation (7.3.6). | Philipp Reichenbach | 1 2 |
|
p. 177,
¶
Line -11
|
Replace "$\mathscr{F}_{|U} \otimes_{\mathscr{O}_U} \mathscr{H}_{|U}$" by "$\mathscr{G}_{|U} \otimes_{\mathscr{O}_U} \mathscr{H}_{|U}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 177,
¶
Line 9ff
|
In this general setting some stalks of $\mathcal{O}_X$ might be zero. But in order to read off the rank at $x$ from the local rank you need that $\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ is a nonzero ring. | Denis Vogel | 1 2 |
|
p. 178,
¶
Line 19
|
The morphism "$\iota$" has not been defined; it should be (7.5.7). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 179,
¶
Line 6
|
Add "for all open $U\subseteq X$" at the end of the line. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 181,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace "and" by "an". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 181,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "(2.27)" by "Proposition 2.27". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 182,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace "with respect" by "with respect to". | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 182,
¶
Line 16
|
Replace "localization in the prime ideal" by "localization at the prime ideal". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 184,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace "identity" by "identity morphism of". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 185,
¶
Corollary 7.19. (4)
|
Define $\mathscr{F}$ and $\mathscr{G}$ to be quasi-coherent $\mathscr{O}_X$-modules. | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 185,
¶
Proof of corollary 7.19 (4)
|
Maybe replace the final sentence by the following, to make this clearer: These isomorphisms show that the presheaf $\mathscr H$ on the basis of the topology given by the $D(f)$ is actually a sheaf, and therefore yield the desired isomorphism (7.10.3). | Caiyong Qiu | 1 2 |
|
p. 186,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace "(7.4)" by "(7.5)". (Invertible $\mathscr{O}_X$-modules are explained at the end of section (7.5).) | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 187,
¶
Theorem 7.22
|
Replace $X_s$ by $X_s(\mathscr L)$ in the statement (and in the proof before the reduction to $\mathscr L \cong \mathscr O$. | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 188,
¶
-11
|
Add reference to Corollary 3.22 (open subschemes of noetherian schemes are noetherian). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 188,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "of Dedekind schemes" with "by Dedekind schemes". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 189,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "$y\in U_x\cap X_0$" by "$y\in (U_x\cap X_0)\setminus\{x\}$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 189,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace "$\mathscr{L}_{|U_x}$" by "$\mathscr{L}_{D|U_x}$" | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 190,
¶
Line 23
|
In general, there are $\mathscr O_X$-modules of finite type that are not of finite presentation even over Noetherian schemes (take a quotient of $\mathscr O_X$ by a non-quasi-coherent sheaf of ideals) . (It is true that a quasi-coherent $\mathscr O_X$-modules of finite type over a Noetherian scheme is of finite presentation.) | H. Iriarte | 1 |
|
p. 190,
¶
Line -15
|
Add "be" before "extended". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 191,
¶
Line -1
|
Replace "generated" by "generate". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 191,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace "$X''$" by "$U''$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 191,
¶
Commutative diagram
|
In the right-most column, replace $n$ by $m$ in both rows. | P. Carlucci | 1 |
|
p. 192,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "as" by "as an". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 194,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "analogue" by "analogous". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 194,
¶
(7.18.1)
|
Here $\mathscr{F}$ needs to be flat over Y (before, it was only assumed to be $f$-flat in a point $x$). | Longxi Hu | 1 |
|
p. 194,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace $\mathop{\rm Spec} A$ by $\mathop{\rm Spec} B$. | Longxi Hu | 1 |
|
p. 195,
¶
Remark 7.43
|
It might be worth adding a reference to arxiv:1011.0038 and/or the Stacks project (058B, 05A5). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 195,
¶
Proof of Lemma 7.42
|
`The corresponding homomorphism $A'^n \to M'$` should be `The corresponding homomorphism $A'^r → M'$`; similarly, `an isomorphism $A^r_s \to M^r_s$' should be `an isomorphism $A^r_s \to M_s$'. | Kannappan Sampath | 1 |
|
p. 196,
¶
Line -2
|
Use a different letter for the submodule $N$, since the letter $N$ is used before and afterwards for stating the universal property. | Jan Willing | 1 |
|
p. 197,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace "holds of" by "holds for". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 199,
¶
Exer. 7.4
|
Add a comma before $s_r(x)$ in both (a) and (b). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 200,
¶
Exercise 7.7 (b)
|
The exercise is not correct as written. Instead, one could say that there is a natural surjective $\mathscr O_X$-module homomorphism $\mathscr F^\eta\to \mathscr F^x$ and its kernel $\mathscr G$ has the property that $\mathscr G_{|U}$ is not globally generated for any open neighborhood $U$ of $x$. | Mathis Birken | 1 2 |
|
p. 200,
¶
Exer. 7.10 (a)
|
Replace the first occurrence of "polynomials" by "polynomial". | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 201,
¶
Exercise 7.16
|
Replace $\mathscr F$ by $\mathscr E$ (four times). | Jan Willing | 1 2 |
|
p. 202,
¶
Exercise 7.20
|
Replace ${\mathscr F}$ by ${\mathscr G}$. | J. Calabrese | 1 |
|
p. 202,
¶
Exer. 7.18
|
Add the condition $\mathscr I \ne 0$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 203,
¶
Exercise 7.30
|
The $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules should be finite locally free, as the determinant was defined in that setting. | 1 | |
|
p. 204,
¶
Line 4 (ex. 7.32)
|
Replace "send" with "sent". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 206,
¶
Statement of Proposition 8.4
|
Replace “Then the locus, where $v$ is surjective, is open” with “Then the locus where $v$ is surjective is open”. | Owen Colman | 1 |
|
p. 206,
¶
Prop. 8.4
|
It might be helpful to add a Remark after the Proposition pointing out that as a formal consequence one gets the following: Let $S$ be a scheme, let $X$ be an $S$-scheme, and let $v$ be a homomorphism of quasi-coherent $\mathscr{O}_X$-modules. Then the functor $F'$ on $S$-schemes with $F'(T) = \{ f\in \mathop{\rm Hom}_S(T,X);\ f^*(v)\ \text{surjective} \}$ is representable by an open subscheme of $X$. (Apply the original proposition to $X$, $v$ to obtain an open subscheme $U$ of $X$, and observe that the $S$-scheme $U$ represents the functor $F'$. This is how the Proposition is often used later, e.g., in the proof of Lemma 8.13. (Likewise for part (2) of the proposition and other similar statements, like Theorem 11.17.) | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 206,
¶
Prop. 8.4
|
It would be helpful to point out explicitly that for an $S$-Scheme $T$ the set ${\rm Hom}_S(T, S)$ is a singleton set (and that therefore in both (1) and (2) of Prop. 8.4 the set $F(T)$ has at most one element). | A. Graf | 1 2 |
|
p. 207,
¶
Proof of Prop. 8.4
|
For part (1), one could add a reference to Exer. 7.2 (c). For part (2), maybe the argument in the last sentence should be expanded a little bit (one could say that $f^*(\tilde{v}) = 0$ if and only if the ideal generated by $\mathscr I$ in $\mathscr O_T$ is zero, which happens if and only if $f$ factors through $V(\mathscr I)$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 209,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "all $S$" by "all $T$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 209,
¶
Lines -14, -13
|
Replace all $S$ by $T$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 209,
¶
Line 10
|
Change the first "and" to "by". | 1 | |
|
p. 209,
¶
Equation (8.3.1)
|
Replace $U_{ij}\cap U_{jk}$ by $U_{ij}\cap U_{ik}$. | 1 | |
|
p. 209,
¶
Line 15
|
The second subscript $F$ is missing in the fiber product $F_i \times_F F_j\times F_k$. | Shahram Mohsenipour | 1 |
|
p. 211,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace ``bijective'' by ``an isomorphism''. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 211,
¶
Line -7
|
Add "of" between "homomorphism" and "$\mathscr{O}_S$-modules". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 212,
¶
Line -16
|
Insert ``and is'' before ``also''. | D. Gerigk | 1 |
|
p. 212,
¶
Line -19
|
Replace "therefore" by "therefore we get". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 212,
¶
Line -5
|
Replace "subvector space of $K^n$" by "subvector space $U$ of $K^n$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 214,
¶
Proof of Proposition 8.17
|
It would be useful to explain in greater detail how to apply Proposition 8.4 (2). Maybe something along the lines of "Let $h: X \to S$ be an $S$-scheme. Given $X \to {\rm Grass}^e(\mathcal{E}_1)$, let $\mathcal{V}_X$ be the corresponding element of ${\rm Grass}^e(\mathcal{E}_1)(X)$, and apply Proposition 8.4 (2) to the composite $\ker(h^*(v)) \to h^*(\mathscr E_1)/\mathcal{V}_X$." | Owen Colman | 1 |
|
p. 214,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace "$S$ scheme" by "$S$-scheme". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 214,
¶
Line -4, (8.7.1)
|
Maybe replace $u^*\mathrm{Grass}^e(\mathscr{E})$ by $\mathrm{Grass}^e(\mathscr{E})\times_SS'$ here to emphasize that the Yoneda lemma is used in order to obtain an isomorphism of schemes. The corresponding identification of functors is already obtained in the displayed line above. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 216,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace $q'$ by $q''$. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 216,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace "of $\mathscr{O}_S$-module" by "of $\mathscr{O}_S$-modules". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 216,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace "disjoint sum" with "disjoint union". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 217,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace ${\rm Grass}_1$ by ${\rm Grass}^1$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 217,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace ${\rm Grass}^1(\bigwedge^d\mathscr{O}_{Spec(\mathbb{Z})})$ by ${\rm Grass}^{\binom{n}{d}-1}(\bigwedge^d\mathscr{O}_{Spec(\mathbb{Z})})$. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 218,
¶
Line 10
|
Rephrase as "... we have a bijection, functorial in $S$,". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 219,
¶
Line -11, Def. 8.25
|
Insert "$X$" after "$k$-scheme". | D. Gerigk/Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 219,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace $k$ by $\mathbb C$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 219,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace "Corollary 5.45" by "Proposition 5.51". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 219,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "the kernel of $\bigwedge^e \mathscr E\dots$" by "the kernel of $\bigwedge^e f^*\mathscr E\dots$. (And maybe also, in the same line, $\mathbb P(\bigwedge^e \mathscr E)$ by $\mathbb P(\bigwedge^e \mathscr E)(T)$.) | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 220,
¶
Line 19 (Proof of Proposition 8.26)
|
Replace $M_{1 \times n}$ by $M_{1\times n}(R)$. | Sz-Sheng Wang | 1 2 |
|
p. 220,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace "$(v,u)$" by "$(v,s)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 221,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "(v)" by "(iv)". | 1 | |
|
p. 221,
¶
Line -13
|
Add subscript $k$ to $\otimes$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 221,
¶
Line -13
|
Insert "points" between "$R$-valued" and "of". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 223,
¶
Exercise 8.7
|
Replace `$\mathscr N_n$ is the called ...' by `The scheme $\mathscr N_n$ is called'. | Akash N | 1 2 |
|
p. 224,
¶
Exercise 8.11
|
Repace ${\mathscr G}$ by $f^*{\mathscr G}$, and the map $f^*{\mathscr G} \to f^*{\mathscr E}$ will not be injective in general. | L. Galinat | 1 |
|
p. 226,
¶
Lines 10/12
|
Replace ``$\{(x,f(x)) ; x \in X\}$ is closed in $X\times Y$'' by ``$\{(y,f(y)); y \in Y\}$ is closed in $Y\times X$'' in (ii), and replace ``$\{x \in X; f(x) = g(x)\}$ is closed in $X$'' by ``$\{y \in Y; f(y) = g(y)\}$ is closed in $Y$'' in (iii). | O. Das | 1 |
|
p. 226,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace ``separable'' by ``separated''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 227,
¶
Line 19
|
Replace "an $S$-objects" by "an $S$-object". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 228,
¶
Statement of Prop. 9.3 (3)
|
Replace $f$ by $u$ everywhere (i.e., in 3 places). | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 229,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace "$p\colon X\times_S Y$" by "$p\colon X\times_S Y \to X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 230,
¶
Lines 16, 17
|
Replace $X\rightarrow X_{\rm red}$ by $X_{\rm red}\rightarrow X$, and likewise for $Y$, and replace $f_{\rm red}\circ i_Y$ by $i_Y\circ f_{\rm red}$. | P. Barik/U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 232,
¶
Lines 6-9
|
Replace "Grass$_{n,n-e}$" with "Grass$_{n-e,n}$" (4 times) to keep the same notation as in chapter 8. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 233,
¶
Prop. 9.19 (iii)
|
$f$ and $g$ should be $S$-morphisms. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 233,
¶
Remark 9.20, (1)
|
The "conversely" part is clear, but it does not follow from Proposition 9.19 (ii) that "open schematically dense" implies "dense". In fact, it contradicts this example (Stacks project). From here (cf. Prop. 10.30, Remark 10.31) and here (which follows from Lemma 1.25, p. 15, and Definition 10.1 (ii), p.242) it follows that it is the case whenever the ambient scheme X is locally Noetherian. | Laura Brustenga Moncusí | 1 |
|
p. 233,
¶
Def. 9.21
|
Replace ``$\mathfrak p_x$'' by ``$\mathfrak m_x$''. | A. Isaev | 1 |
|
p. 234,
¶
Line 28 (Remark 9.25)
|
Replace ``can checked'' by ``can be checked''. | L. Galinat | 1 |
|
p. 234,
¶
Line 30 (Remark 9.25)
|
Replace $U\subseteq S$ by $U\subseteq X$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 234,
¶
Lines -3, -1
|
Replace "$\mathcal R$" by "$\mathcal R(X, Y)$" (twice). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 235,
¶
Line 9
|
The claimed injectivity does not hold in general. It does hold if $Y$ is separated over $S$ (by Prop. 9.19). | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 235,
¶
Def. 9.26
|
Our definition of rational map is different from that in other places in the literature. Notably, in EGA I (new ed.) 8.1, it is not required that the open subset $U$ be schematically dense. Cf. however the notion of pseudo-morphism introduced in EGA IV, 20.2. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 236,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace "$(\lambda,\mu)$" with "$(\lambda : \mu)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 236,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace "$K$" with "$K(X)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 236,
¶
Second equation in Example 9.30
|
It should say "$(x,y) \mapsto \dots$" rather than "$(x,y)\to\dots$". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 237,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "tape" with "type". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 237,
¶
Line 24 (Remark 9.34)
|
Replace $f\colon - - \rightarrow Y$ by $f\colon X - - \rightarrow Y$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 238,
¶
Line 3
|
Delete the second $X$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 238,
¶
Line 17 (Exercise 9.2)
|
Replace ``$X \times_S Y \to X \times_S Y$'' by ``$X \times_S Y \to X \times_T Y$'' | L. Galinat | 1 |
|
p. 241,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "among" by "along". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 241,
¶
Paragraph 2, Line -4
|
Replace "this" by "these". | Jenna Nieminen | 1 2 |
|
p. 241,
¶
8
|
Replace "roughly spoken" by "roughly speaking". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 242,
¶
Rmk. 10.2 (4)
|
At the end, replace ``if $Y$ not separated'' by ``if $Y$ is not separated''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 248,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "on" with "an". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 248,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace ``ad'' by ``and''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 249,
¶
Line 1
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}_{Y,f(y)}$" with "$\mathscr{O}_{Y,f(x)}$" | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 251,
¶
Lines 29, 31 (Proof of Prop. 10.30)
|
Replace $i\colon Z\rightarrow X$ by $i\colon Z\rightarrow Y$ and $i^\flat$ by $i^\flat \colon \mathscr O_Y \rightarrow i^* \mathscr O_Z$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 251,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "Its sum" by "The sum". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 253,
¶
Remark 10.40 (3)
|
Add the assumption that $X$ has a basis of retro-compact open subsets. | A. Gross | 1 |
|
p. 254,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "Definition 10.5" by "Definition 10.12". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 254,
¶
Line -12, -11
|
Replace 'constructible' by 'globally constructible' twice. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 255,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace $Z$ by $C$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 256,
¶
Line 8
|
The implicit definition of the $U^i$ is a bit confusing. It might be clearer to write "The set $\mathcal U = \dots$ is totally ordered by inclusion. We define $U^i$ by $\mathcal U = \{ U_0, \dots, U^n\}$ and $U^0\subsetneq U^1\subsetneq\cdots\subsetneq U^n$, so $U^0 = U_0=U$, $U^n = X$. | Jan Willing | 1 2 |
|
p. 256,
¶
Line 18 (Cor. 10.49)
|
In the conclusion of the corollary, add that $\mathscr{F}$ is also quasi-coherent. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 257,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace "an" with "a". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 259,
¶
Line 16
|
Replace "inductive limit" by "inductive limits". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 261,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace "inverse images under continuous maps" by "inverse images under morphisms". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 263,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace $v_{0\lambda}^{-1}$ by $x_{0\lambda}^{-1}$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 264,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "1., 3., 5." with "1.-3., 5.". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 265,
¶
l. $-2$
|
Replace ``$R$-scheme'' by ``of $R$-schemes''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 265,
¶
Line -15 (cor. 10.67)
|
Add "of" between "morphism" and "$S$-schemes". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 267,
¶
Line -10 (prop. 10.75)
|
Replace "$f$" with "$f_0$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 267,
¶
Line -8
|
Add "or" after property (1). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 268,
¶
l. $-7$
|
Insert ``if'' after ``In fact,''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 268,
¶
l $-2$
|
Remove one ``that'' and replace ``morphism'' by ``morphisms''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 268,
¶
Theorem 10.76
|
It is not true in general that $B$ is the inductive limit of its smooth $A$-sub-algebras. All one can say in general is that $B$ is isomorphic to a filtered inductive limit of smooth $A$-algebras. See the discussion in Spivakovsky's paper [Sp] (Problem 1.3; Section 10). | M. Hoyois, S. Kelly | 1 |
|
p. 268,
¶
Line 22
|
Replace "morphism" with "morphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 270,
¶
Line 17
|
Remove "it". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 272,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "subscheme) structure" with "subscheme structure)". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 273,
¶
Line -22
|
Replace "Frobenius (4.24)" by "Frobenius morphism (Definition 4.24)". (Cf. this erratum.) | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 273,
¶
Line -14
|
Add "is" before "constructible". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 274,
¶
Line 4
|
Replace ``suffice'' by ``suffices''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 274,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace "$E\subseteq \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{P})$" with "$\overline{E}\supseteq \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{P})$". (If $\pi(\mathfrak{p})=p$ with $p\in\mathcal{P}$, then $\pi(\mathfrak{m})=p$ for all closed points $\mathfrak{m}$ which are specializations of $\mathfrak{p}$, as $\pi$ is continuous. Since all such closed points belong to $E$ and $R$ is a finitely-generated $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra and, in particular, Jacobson, we conclude that $\mathfrak{p}\in\overline{E}$.) | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 275,
¶
Line 21
|
Replace "Corollary 10.85" with "Theorem 10.84" (we want to apply it to $\mathscr{H}$, not to $\mathscr{O}_X$). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 276,
¶
Line 20
|
Add "of" between "is" and "finite type". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 277,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "Corollary 5.12" with "Corollary 5.17". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 277,
¶
Line 21
|
Add that $S$ is noetherian. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 278,
¶
Lines 21-26 (last paragraph of the proof of thm. 10.97)
|
Replace "$X_\xi$" with "$X_\eta$" (three times). Moreover, if $U$ is the non-empty open subset of $S$ which we are considering, the last equation holds for $v\in V=Y\cap f^{-1}(U)$ (not all $Y$). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 280,
¶
Line 20
|
It would look better to replace $N>1$ by $N\ge 1$ (as in the following line). | Peter Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 281,
¶
Line 25 (ex. 10.22)
|
Replace "is" with "be its". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 281,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace the final part of the sentence by "and $\kappa(x)$ is a finite extension of $\kappa(f(x))$.". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 283,
¶
Line -14 (ex. 10.34)
|
Replace "inductive limit" with "inductive system". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 284,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "generic" by "generically". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 286,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace "between to ..." by "between two ...". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 286,
¶
Line 5
|
Delete "Line bundles and". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 286,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "roughly spoken" by "roughly speaking". | 1 | |
|
p. 287,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "$S$" by "$X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 288,
¶
2 lines above equation (11.1.6)
|
Replace $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$ by $f\colon Y\rightarrow X$. | Zhaodong Cai | 1 |
|
p. 288,
¶
Last line of the statement of Proposition 11.1
|
$({\rm Sch})^{\rm opp}$ should be $({\rm Sch}/X)^{\rm opp}$. | 1 | |
|
p. 288,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "$\binom{r+n-1}{r}$" with "$\binom{r+n-1}{n}$" (or "$\binom{r+n-1}{r-1}$"). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 289,
¶
Prop. 11.3
|
In the statement of the proposition (and in its proof), one should add parentheses in order to emphasize that the target of the isomorphism is $\Gamma(T, (h^* \mathscr E)^\vee)$. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 291,
¶
Line 9
|
Remove the extra parenthesis in "$\mathscr{S}(V/X))$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 292,
¶
-14
|
Replace "is the group $G$ itself" by "is the sheaf of groups $G$ itself" | Félix Baril Boudreau | 1 |
|
p. 292,
¶
Line 18
|
Write morphism instead of morphisms. | Saskia Kern | 1 2 |
|
p. 293,
¶
Lines 5-7
|
Define $\theta$ and $\theta'$ as $\theta := (g_{ij})_{i,j}$ and $\theta' := (g_{ij}')_{i, j}$, respectively. Maybe replace "for all $i$" with "for all $i \in I$". Mention explicitly that the equation (in line 7) holds on $U_i \cap U_j$. | N. T. | 1 2 |
|
p. 293,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "1-cocycle" with "1-cocycles". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 293,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace "straight forward" by "straightforward". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 293,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace "1-cocycle" with "1-cocycles". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 294,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace $\check{H}^1(X, G)$ by $\check{H}^1(X, G')$. | Saskia Kern | 1 2 |
|
p. 295,
¶
Line 5
|
Add somewhere that $\varphi$ is the map $G'\to G$ in the short exact sequence (11.5.5). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 295,
¶
Lines -2, -3, -5
|
Replace $\mathscr Isom(\mathscr E, \mathscr O_X^n)$ by $\mathscr Isom(\mathscr O_X^n, \mathscr E)$. | A. Schiller | 1 |
|
p. 296,
¶
Line -3
|
The discussion in Example 11.42 only considers the noetherian case. (The result is true in general, see e.g. Stacks project 0BCH.) Also, add "ring" after "factorial" (alternatively, remove "a" before). |
F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 298,
¶
Line 6
|
We can only conclude that the immersion is locally of finite presentation. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 299,
¶
6th line after Definition 11.19
|
TeX: $\mathop{\rm Div}(X)$ should be upright | 1 | |
|
p. 299,
¶
Line 6
|
The sheaf $\mathscr{R}_X$ has not been defined (it is the sheaf given by $U\mapsto R(U)$), and maybe should not a priori be called a ``constant sheaf'' here. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 300,
¶
Line 3
|
The mapping $U\mapsto {\rm Frac}(\Gamma(U,\mathscr O_X))$ is not a presheaf in general (rather, one should consider the localization with respect to elements which are non-zero divisors in every stalk). See Kleiman, Misconceptions about $K_X$. Enseign. Math. (2) 25 (1979), no. 3-4, 203--206 (1980), for a detailed discussion. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 303,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace ``detailed'' by ``detail''. | J. Calabrese | 1 |
|
p. 304,
¶
Line 1
|
Delete the second $U$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace "isomorphism" by "isomorphisms". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Line 19 (displayed bijection)
|
Replace "cartier" with "Cartier". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Line 27
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}$" with "$\mathscr{O}_X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Line -8 (Lemma 11.33)
|
The notation for the codimension is different from the notation used in chapter 5. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace ``for every maximal point of ${\rm Supp} D$'' by ``for every maximal point $\eta$ of ${\rm Supp} D$''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 305,
¶
Prop. 11.32
|
Replace the definition of ``regular'' given in parentheses by ``i.e., the associated homomorphism $\mathscr O_X \rightarrow \mathscr L$ is injective''. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 306,
¶
Line 7
|
Replace $\mathop{\rm codim}(Z, X)$ by $\mathop{\rm codim}\nolimits_X(Z)$ (twice). | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 306,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}_{X,c}$" with "$\mathscr{O}_{X,C}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 306,
¶
Lemma 11.35
|
The hypothesis of A being local is not needed. In fact, Corollary B.64 doesn't have to be invoked: Let $a$ be a regular element. By a slightly different version of Krull's principal ideal theorem (e.g. Corollary 11.17 in [AM]), every minimal prime ideal over $a$ has height 1. In particular, for every such prime $P$, $\dim(A/P) \leq \dim(A)-{\rm ht}(P) = 1-1 = 0$, and hence $\dim(A/P) = 0$. Moreover, if $a$ is not a unit, then $\dim(A/(a)) = 0$. Therefore, $A/(a)$ is an Artinian ring for every regular elements $a$. Now the proof continues with no further changes. | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 307,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace (B.75) by B.75. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 308,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace $U$ by $U_i$ (twice). | B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 308,
¶
Prop. 11.40
|
The proposition is not true as it stands (a counterexample is given by $X$ the plane with a fattened origin, and $Z$ the origin). It is correct with the additional assumption that $U$ be schematically dense in $X$ (use the characterization in Lemma 9.23 (ii) to conclude that the exactness at $Z^1(X)$ of the corresponding sequence of groups of cycles yields the exactness at ${\rm Cl}(X)$ of the sequence in the proposition). | B. Smithling | 1 |
|
p. 309,
¶
Line -4ff
|
Replace ``as product $f_1f_2\dots f_r$, where $f_i \in S$ are irreducible homogeneous polynomials'' by ``as product $f_1^{d_1}f_2^{d_2}\dots f_r^{d_r}$, where $f_i \in S$ are irreducible homogeneous polynomials and $d_i \in {\mathbb Z}$'' and replace ``$Z\colon {\mathcal R} \to Z^1({\mathbb P}^n_k), f \mapsto \sum_i [V_+(f_i)]$'' by ``$Z\colon {\mathcal R} \to Z^1({\mathbb P}^n_k), f \mapsto \sum_i d_i[V_+(f_i)]$''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 309,
¶
Lines -4, -1
|
The expression for $f$ in line 8 (ed. 1: line -4) ignores that there may be denominators. A homogeneous polynomial may be expressed as stated and for those $f$ the expression in line 11 (ed. 1: line -1) is correct. In general, we express an element of $\mathcal R$ as a fraction and extend the map $Z$ in the obvious way so that it becomes a group homomorphism. | J.-C. Syu | 1 2 |
|
p. 309,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace $\mathop{\rm codim}(Z, X)$ by $\mathop{\rm codim}\nolimits_X(Z)$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 310,
¶
Line 15
|
The symbol $D(f)$ is not defined, and should be defined explicitly as the Cartier divisor $(D_+(T_i), f/T_i^d)_i$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 311,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace "Example 7.13" by "(7.13)". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 313,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace ``set'' by ``sets''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 313,
¶
Line 1
|
The morphism $\phi$ is not necessarily flat: See mathoverflow.net/questions/65267/global-sections-of-flat-scheme-also-flat. The statement of the proposition is true, though: One should first remark that one can work locally on target and source and hence can assume that everything is affine. | Hernan I. | 1 |
|
p. 315,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace $d$ by $d_i$ in the definition of $\mathscr E^\lambda$ (twice). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 315,
¶
Line -2
|
The notion of being "of pure dimension 1" has not been defined. It is defined in brackets in Proposition 15.1. The easiest fix here might be to replace it by ``equidimensional of dimension 1''. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 318,
¶
Exercise 11.18 (a)
|
Replace '$Z^1({\rm Spec}\ A)\cong\mathbb{Z}^r$' by '$Z^1({\rm Spec}\ A)\cong\mathbb{Z}$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 319,
¶
Line -13 (ex. 11.22 (a))
|
Replace "an" with "a". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 321,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "a affine scheme" with "an affine scheme". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 321,
¶
Line 24
|
Replace ``affine over $X$'' by ``affine over $Y$''. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 323,
¶
Line -9
|
The (finite) covering $(U_i)_i$ of $X$ should be an affine open covering. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 323,
¶
Line 8
|
In the last expression of 12.2.3 replace $Y'$ by $X'$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 323,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace $\otimes_{(A'\otimes_A B})\otimes$ by $\otimes_{(A'\otimes_A B)}$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 323,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "and hence $X' = {\rm Spec}(B' \otimes_B A)$" by "and hence $X' = {\rm Spec}(A' \otimes_A B)$". | Akash N | 1 2 |
|
p. 323,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace $X' = \mathop{\rm Spec} B' \otimes_{B} A$ by $X' = \mathop{\rm Spec}(B \otimes_A A')$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 324,
¶
Line -17
|
Remove ``a'' at the end of the line. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 324,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "$\mathscr{F}(X)$" with "$\mathscr{F}(U_i)$" | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 325,
¶
Line -3
|
``Corollary 5.12'' should be ``Proposition 5.12''. | U. Hartl | 1 |
|
p. 328,
¶
Prop. 12.18
|
The first formula is false (almost always, e.g. if $Y=\mathop{\rm Spec} \mathbb F_p$, $X=\mathop{\rm Spec} \mathbb F_{p^2}$, $X'=\mathop{\rm Spec} \mathbb F_{p^2}$). | Yehao Zhou | 1 |
|
p. 329,
¶
Line 4
|
In addition to the notion of degree of $f$, add the notion of rank of $f$ with the same meaning. Nevertheless, we will try to stick to the term degree (change this on p. 331, l. 3, l. 15; p. 479, l. 1). | Peng Du / Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 329,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace "be" with "by". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 329,
¶
Line -7
|
Switch the order in all pairs $z/x, \dots$ in this line. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 330,
¶
Line 2
|
Switch the order in all pairs $z/x, \dots$ in this line. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 332,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace ``Corollary 5.12'' by ``Proposition 5.12''. | S. Köbele | 1 |
|
p. 332,
¶
Lines 2 and 22
|
Both in the statement (twice) and in the proof (once) of Proposition 12.27, "$\mathscr{O}$" is used to denote "$\mathscr{O}_X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 333,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace $a_0$ by $a_n$. | S. Köbele | 1 |
|
p. 333,
¶
Example 12.29
|
In several places, replace $t$ by $t'$. | S. Köbele | 1 |
|
p. 335,
¶
Equation (12.8.1)
|
The middle term should be $\frac{f_j^{k+\ell}x_{\mathbf i}}{f_{\mathbf i}^k}$ instead of $\frac{f_j^{k+\ell}x_{\mathbf i}}{f_{\mathbf i}^r}$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 335,
¶
Theorem 12.35
|
The assumption that $X$ be quasi-separated is superfluous. This is currently used to invoke Theorem 7.22 in the proof of (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i), but it follows from (ii) since $X_{f_i}\cap X_{f_j}$ is a principal open subset of the affine scheme $X_{f_i}$. Alternatively, one could prove (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) by saying that for all $i$, the morphism $X_{f_i}\to D(f_i)$ is affine (since $X_{f_i}$ is affine), so that by Prop. 12.1 the morphism $X\to {\rm Spec}(A)$ is affine. | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 338,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace "$H^1(\mathscr{O}_Y,\mathscr{F})$" with "$H^1(Y,\mathscr{F})$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 338,
¶
Line 8
|
Add "be" between "let $\eta$" and "its generic point". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 339,
¶
Line -13
|
Replace $L$ by $L_X$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 341,
¶
Line 11
|
Add "be" before "its normalization". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 342,
¶
Line -12 (prop. 12.53)
|
Add that $X$ is integral. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 344,
¶
Line -11
|
Replace $f^{-1}(U)\subseteq V$ by $f^{-1}(V)\subseteq U$. | P. Barik | 1 |
|
p. 346,
¶
Line -4
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}_X$-module" with "$\mathscr{O}_X$-modules". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 347,
¶
Line 7
|
Add "is" before "not irreducible". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 348,
¶
Line -10
|
Add "be" before "its Stein factorization". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 348,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "Remark 12.10 (2)" by "Remark 12.10 (3)". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 351,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "$\varphi$" by "$\varphi\colon A\to B$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 352,
¶
Line -12
|
Replace ``relation'' by ``relations''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 352,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace ``finite'' by ``integral'': We do not know whether $A'$ is finite over $A$, but it being integral is enough for the following argument. | Yugo Takanashi | 1 |
|
p. 353,
¶
Proof of Prop. 12.76
|
In the beginning of the proof, it would be useful to note that the inclusion $\mathop{\rm Isol}(B/A) \supseteq \mathop{\rm LocIsom}(B/\overline{A})$ follows easily from Lemma 12.75 (1) and going up for integral extensions, so that only the opposite inclusion is considered in the following. In the second step, to see that $\mathfrak q'\in \mathop{\rm Isol(A'/A)}$, note that the existence of $U'$ shows that $\mathfrak q'$ is open in its fiber over $\mathop{\rm Spec} A$. By Lemma 12.72 it is therefore isolated, because the fiber is of finite type over $\kappa(\mathfrak q)$. |
F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 356,
¶
line -8
|
Replace "this is implies" by "this implies". | Shahram Mohsenipour | 1 |
|
p. 356,
¶
Lines 6 to 8
|
Replace "$W'$" with "$W$" and "$X'$" with "$X$" (three times altogether). Replace $f\mathscr O_Y$ by $\mathscr O_Y$ (twice). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 357,
¶
Proof of Thm. 12.73
|
In general, it is not true that $f'$ as defined in the book is of finite type; hence Cor. 12.78 cannot be applied directly. Instead, one can proceed as follows: Start the proof as in the book: the restriction of $c$ to ${\rm Isol}(c)$ is an open immersion, hence $h$ is an open immersion. Now approximate $X'$ by $X'_\mu$ which are affine of finite type over $Y$ (analogously to approximating $Z$ by $Z_\lambda$). Using Lemma 12.84, we may assume that $V'\rightarrow X'_\mu$ is an open immersion (for some fixed large $\mu$). Now replace $X'$ by $X'_\mu$ and continue as in the book: Define $Z$, apply 12.78 (which is now justified), observe that $V' \subseteq {\rm Isol}(X'/Z)$, and apply Lemma 12.84 again to approximations of $Z$. | Yehao Zhou | 1 |
|
p. 361,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace "my" by "may". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 361,
¶
Ex. 12.6
|
Replace isomporphism by isomorphism. | T. Keller | 1 |
|
p. 363,
¶
Line -22, Exer. 12.21
|
Insert "be" before "Dedekind rings". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 367,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace $\sum_{d\ge 0}$ by $\sum_d$ (to also cover the case of graded modules). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 367,
¶
Line -6
|
With the terminology introduced before, the definition of homegeneous ideal should read "A homogeneous ideal I of A is a homogeneous submodule of A." (But maybe the term graded submodule, with the same meaning as homgeneous submodule, should also be introduced.) | Johann Birnick | 1 2 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Prop. 13.2 (3)
|
Replace ``with all relevant prime ideals'' by ``with the intersection of all relevant prime ideals''. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Prop. 13.2 (2)
|
The set of ideals disjoint from $S$ may be empty. A corrected version of (2) is: "Let $S\subset A_+$ be a non-empty subset such that $s,t\in S$ implies $st\in S$ (hence $S\cup\{1\}$ is a multiplicative subset). Suppose that there exists a homogeneous ideal $I\subsetneq A_+$ such that $S\cap I = \emptyset$. Then every ideal maximal among the set of homogeneous ideals $I$ satisfying $I\subsetneq A_+$ and $S\cap I=\emptyset$ is of the form $\mathfrak{p}_+$ for a relevant prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$." Maybe also include justification in the proof of (3) why the set of ideals with those properties for $S=\{f,f^2,\dots\}$ is non-empty: "Conversely, if $f\notin\text{rad}(I)$, then let $S=\{f,f^2,\dots\}$ and note $I\cap S=\emptyset$ and $I\subsetneq A_+$. Hence there is a relevant prime ideal disjoint from $S$ by (2), so $f$ is not contained in the intersection of all relevant prime ideals." | Matthew Snodgrass | 1 2 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "graded ideal" by "homogeneous ideal". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Line -20
|
The element $f$ should be homogeneous. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Proof of Prop 13.2 (3)
|
To apply (2), $f$ must be in $A_+$. The current argument is sufficient to show (3) (together with a direct proof that the ideal $\operatorname{rad}(I)$ is homogeneous) but not for the statement in the first line of the proof. | 1 2 | |
|
p. 368,
¶
Statement of Prop. 13.2 (2)
|
We must assume that $0\notin S$ and that $S$ contains an element of $A_+$. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace ``ideal'' by ``ideals''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 368,
¶
Equation (13.1.1)
|
Replace $\mod f-1$ by $\mod (f-1)$ | A. Kaučikas | 1 |
|
p. 369,
¶
Line 21
|
We defined $V_+(\mathfrak a)$ only for homogeneous ideals contained in $A_+$. Therefore $V(\mathfrak a^h)$ should be replaced by $V(\mathfrak a^h\cap A_+)$. Note that for $\mathfrak p\in {\rm Proj}(A)$, we have \(\mathfrak a\subseteq \mathfrak p \Leftrightarrow \mathfrak a^h\subseteq\mathfrak p\Leftrightarrow \mathfrak a^h\cap A_+\subseteq\mathfrak p.\) (Alternatively we could define $V_+(-)$ for all homogeneous ideals (or even all subsets of $A$) and explain why this doesn't make a difference.) | Dominik Briganti | 1 2 |
|
p. 370,
¶
Line 10
|
$f \in {\rm rad}(g)_+$ should read $g \in {\rm rad}(f)_+$. | F. Gispert Sánchez/N. Pflueger | 1 |
|
p. 371,
¶
Line -19
|
Insert "be" before "a graded". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 371,
¶
Line -18
|
Remove "be" and replace "$R$-algebras" by "$R$-schemes". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 371,
¶
Line 4 (Remark 13.7)
|
In the last line of the remark, it should read $A_{(f)}=A'_{(f^{k\delta})}$. | Jesús Martín O. | 1 |
|
p. 373,
¶
Line -9
|
It is not true in general that the functor considered here commutes with tensor products, see Stacks Project01ML. But this does hold if $A$ is generated by $A_1$ as an $A_0$-algebra. | D. Vogel | 1 2 |
|
p. 375,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace definition of $\sigma$ by ``$\sigma(t'):= t / f^n \in \Gamma_*(\mathscr F)_{(f)}$''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 376,
¶
Line -15
|
Insert "$M$" after "module". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 376,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace '$(M_{(f)})_n$' by '$(M_f)_n$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 376,
¶
Line -10 (thm. 13.20, displayed equation, under the arrow)
|
Replace "$\mathscr{F}\leftarrow\!\shortmid \Gamma_{*}(\mathscr{F})$" with "$\Gamma_{*}(\mathscr{F}) \leftarrow\!\shortmid\mathscr{F}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 377,
¶
Proposition 13.22 (statement and proof)
|
The symbol $n$ is used for two different things: the number of generators of $A_+$ and as an index for $\mathscr{F}(n)$. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 377,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace ``$n \ge 0$'' by ``$n\ge n_0$''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 377,
¶
Prop. 13.24
|
The subscheme $Z$ should be assumed to be non-empty, to ensure we can find $I$ as in the proposition which does not contain $A_+$. | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 378,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace "Corollary 13.24" by "Proposition 13.24". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 378,
¶
Line 12
|
Insert "the" before "saturation". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 378,
¶
line 2
|
Replace "on" with "one." | N. Pflueger | 1 |
|
p. 379,
¶
Line -9
|
The meaning of the symbol $\pi$ should be stated again. Both in the statement of proposition 13.28 and at the end of the proof (in the next page), I would write "$g^*_{\mathscr{L}}(\mathscr{O}_X(n)\otimes\pi^*(\mathscr{L}^{\otimes n}))$" with the extra parentheses (or, alternatively, replace "$\pi$" with "$\pi'$"). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 379,
¶
Line -1
|
The domain and codomain of $g_i$ are swapped: switch $\mathscr{A}_i$ and $\mathscr{A}'_i$. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 379,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace "$\varphi$" with "$\varphi_i$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 379,
¶
Lines -14, -13
|
The notation $-\otimes_{\mathscr O_S}\mathscr O_{S'}$ (used twice) is a bit sloppy. Maybe the $\otimes$ should be replaced by $\boxtimes$, or the tensor product could be replaced by $g'^*$, where $g'$ is the base change of $g$ (which would have to be defined). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 379,
¶
Prop. 13.28
|
In the first line of the statement of the proposition, replace ``modules'' by ``module''. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 380,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "$f_j^{-1}$" with "$f_j^{-n}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 380,
¶
Line 17
|
Add "be" before "the structure morphism". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 380,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}(n)$" with "$\mathscr{O}_X(n)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 380,
¶
Line 6
|
Add "be" before "the structure morphism". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 380,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace "by" with "given by". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 382,
¶
Line -12
|
Replace $\alpha_i$ by $\alpha_j$. | T. Keller | 1 |
|
p. 382,
¶
Lines 15, 18
|
Replace $\mathbb P^{n+1}$ by $\mathbb P^n$ (three times). | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 382,
¶
Line 21
|
Replace "$\mathscr{O}^{n+1}$" with "$\mathscr{O}^{n+1}_X$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 382,
¶
Line 18
|
Replace '$\mathbb{P}^{n+1}=\mathbb{P}(\mathscr{O}_S^{n+1})$' by '$\mathbb{P}_S^{n}=\mathbb{P}(\mathscr{O}_S^{n+1})$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 383,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "$R$-modules" with "$R$-module". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 384,
¶
line -16
|
Replace "Corollary 13.24" with "Proposition 13.24". | N. T. | 1 |
|
p. 384,
¶
Line 16
|
Replace "$\mathscr O_S$-module" by "$\mathscr O_S$-module $\mathscr E$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 384,
¶
Line -4
|
Insert the condition $x\ne x'$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 387,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace "$f$ is invertible in $x$" by "$f(x) \ne 0$ in the fiber $\mathscr L(x)$". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 388,
¶
Line -6, Line -3
|
Add that $f$ is homogeneous. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 389,
¶
Line -17
|
Replace "relevant prime ideals ... of $A_+$" by "relevant prime ideals ... of $A$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 390,
¶
Line -16
|
Omit the statement in parentheses. It is not true that the existence of an ample line bundle implies properness. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 390,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "$(i\times \id_{S'}) \mathscr{O}_{P'}(1)$" with "$(i\times \id_{S'})^* \mathscr{O}_{P'}(1)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 391,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "(the globalization) of" with "(the globalization of)". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 392,
¶
Line -17
|
Remove "be". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 393,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace "send" with "sent". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 393,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace "$i'\colon X \hookrightarrow P'$" with "$i'\colon X \to P'$" (as $i'$ is not necessarily an immersion, only $i$ is). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 393,
¶
Lines -8 and -7
|
Replace "(2)" with "(1)" (twice). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 394,
¶
Line -15
|
Replace "$n\geq n_0+m_0$" with "$n\geq d+m_0$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 394,
¶
Line 20
|
Add that "$S={\rm Spec}\ R$" somewhere ($R$ has not been defined). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 394, 395,
¶
(13.13)
|
In line $-8$, replace ``non-zero'' by ``regular''. At the end of that paragraph, add a reference to Prop. 11.32 (in addition to Cor. 11.28). At the beginning of page 395, add the assumption that $X$ be integral (to ensure that all non-zero global sections of a line bundle are regular). | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 395,
¶
Def. 13.60
|
Insert $\mathscr L$ after $\mathscr O_X$-module. | P. Johnson | 1 |
|
p. 396,
¶
Line -1
|
Add the missing closing parenthesis at the end. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 396,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace "$g^{-1}(X_s)$" with "$(g')^{-1}(X_s)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 397,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "be" by "by". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 398,
¶
Lines -6 & -2 (def./prop. 13.68)
|
Replace "a quasi-coherent $\mathscr{O}_X$-module $\mathscr{E}$" with "a quasi-coherent $\mathscr{O}_S$-module $\mathscr{E}$" (twice). | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 398,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace $Y\backslash \varepsilon(S)$ by $C\backslash \varepsilon(S)$. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 404,
¶
Line -3 (the diagram)
|
Add label $r$ to the right hand arrow. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 404,
¶
Line 19
|
Replace "by Corollary 13.42" with "by Example 13.69". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 405,
¶
Line 22
|
It should be stated that, in the definition of $H_m$, we set $m = e+1 (={\rm rk}\ \mathscr F)$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 405,
¶
Line 19
|
Replace '$X$' by '$Z$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 408,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace '$A^x=k[x,y,\mu]/(\mu x=y)$' by '$A^x=k[x,y,\mu]/(\mu x-y)$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 409,
¶
Diagram (13.19.1)
|
In the top right corner, replace $\mathop{\rm Bl}\nolimits_X(Z)$ by $\mathop{\rm Bl}\nolimits_Z(X)$. | J. Watterlond | 1 |
|
p. 409,
¶
Prop. 13.91
|
Replace "let $Z$ be a closed subscheme of $X$" by "let $Z$ be a closed subscheme of $X$ with corresponding ideal sheaf $\mathscr I$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 410,
¶
Line -6
|
Delete "of". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 410,
¶
Line 21 (the 2nd displayed eqn.)
|
The identification $A[I f^{-1}] = A[(T_\alpha)_\alpha] / (f T_\alpha - x_\alpha)_\alpha$ is not true in general and should be replaced by $A[I f^{-1}] = (A[(T_\alpha)_\alpha] / (f T_\alpha - x_\alpha)_\alpha)/(f-{\rm torsion})$, i.e., replace the right hand side by its quotient by the ideal of all elements annihilated by a power of $f$. | Owen Colman | 1 |
|
p. 410,
¶
Line 21 (the 2nd displayed eqn.)
|
Replace the second $=$ by $-$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 410,
¶
Lines -5, -3
|
Replace $=$ by $-$ (one in each line). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 411,
¶
Line -2 (Proof of Prop. 13.96)
|
Replace $(I \oplus J)/J$ by $(I+J)/J$. | Peng Du / Matthieu Romagny | 1 |
|
p. 412,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "roughly spoken" by "roughly speaking". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 416,
¶
Line 19
|
Replace "morphisms" with "morphism". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 417,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace "particular" by "particularly". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 417,
¶
Line -20
|
Switch the exponents $d+1$ and $d$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 418,
¶
Line -6 (ex. 13.2 (a))
|
Replace "(resp. bijective)" with "(resp. surjective)". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 419,
¶
Line 1 (ex. 13.3)
|
Replace "$A$-modules" with "$A$-module". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 420,
¶
Exer. 13.13
|
Replace "inductive limits of schemes" by "inductive limits of rings". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 422,
¶
Line 17
|
Insert "be" before "its structure morphism". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 423,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace ``morphisms'' by ``morphism''. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 424,
¶
Prop. 14.3. (1)
|
Replace $\mathop{\rm Spec} A \rightarrow \mathop{\rm Spec} B$ by $\mathop{\rm Spec} B \rightarrow \mathop{\rm Spec} A$. | F. Ebert | 1 |
|
p. 426,
¶
Line 16 (cor. 14.12)
|
Replace "a morphism" with "morphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 426,
¶
Line -2
|
Replace ``$\mathop{\rm Spec} R$'' by ``$Y$''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 427,
¶
Prop. 14.16
|
The term "special point" which is used here was not defined before. Define it (and maybe also "special fiber") before the proposition. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 427,
¶
Proof of prop. 14.16
|
In the proof, $X$ is replaced by $\mathop{\rm Spec} \mathscr{O}_{X,x}$ and $f$ is replaced by the composition of $f$ with the canonical morphism $\mathop{\rm Spec} \mathscr{O}_{X,x} \to X$ without saying so. It would be useful to state this explicitly. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 427,
¶
Proposition 14.14 (ii)
|
Replace "schematic closure of the generic fiber $f^{-1}(\eta)$ in X" by "schematic image of the canonical morphism $f^{-1}(\eta) \rightarrow X$". In 10.31, schematic closure is defined only for quasi-compact immersion but the morphism above may not be an immersion. An example: $X=Y=Spec\mathbb{Z}$. Then $\{ 0 \}$ is not a subscheme in the sense of 3.43. | 1 2 | |
|
p. 428,
¶
Lemma 14.19
|
Replace ``such'' by ``such that''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 428,
¶
Proposition 14.20, Lemma 14.21
|
The lemma is incorrect as stated, because the reduction to the local case does not work as claimed. It should be replaced by the following: (1) Let $A$ be a noetherian ring, let $B$ be a noetherian $A$-algebra, and let $M$ be a $B$-module of finite type which is flat over $A$. Let $f\in B$ such that for every maximal ideal $\mathfrak M\subset B$, multiplication by $f$ is an injection $M/(\mathfrak M\cap A) \rightarrow M/(\mathfrak M\cap A)$. Then $M/fM$ is flat over $A$. (2) With the techniques of Chapter 10 the hypothesis ``noetherian'' can be replaced by suitable conditions like ``finite presentation''. See also MathOverflow and Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Thm. 22.6. To avoid the additional difficulty for non-noetherian rings, in the statement of the proposition the assumption that $S$ and $X$ be noetherian should be added. Assuming that $S=\mathop{\rm Spec} A$, $X = \mathop{\rm Spec B}$, the injectivity assertion means that for all maximal ideals $\mathfrak m\subset A$, $f\not\in \mathfrak mB$; it follows that $f\not\in (\mathfrak M \cap A)B$ for all maximal ideals $\mathfrak M\subset B$, so that the lemma (statement (1) of the previous paragraph) can be applied. In the proof of Theorem 14.22 (in the non-noetherian case) a version of the Lemma as alluded to in (2) above is required. |
U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 428,
¶
Proof of prop. 14.17
|
Here, Proposition B.70 (6) is not enough because $X$ is not assumed to be locally noetherian. Thus, we need a slightly different result: If $f$ is flat, then it is even faithfully flat (since it is closed and dominant). Now use that if $A\subseteq B$ are domains with the same field of fractions and $B$ is faithfully flat over $A$, then $A=B$. (Say $\frac as\in B$ for $a, s\in A$. Then $a\in sB\cap A = sA$ by Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Thm. 7.5 (ii), so $\frac as\in A$.) | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 430,
¶
Line 8
|
Replace '$h=g\circ f$' by '$g=h\circ f$'. | Xiaolong Liu | 1 2 |
|
p. 434,
¶
Line -14
|
Add "the" between "If $y$ is not" and "closed point". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 435,
¶
Line -17
|
Replace "morphism" with "morphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 443,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "a open immersion" with "an open immersion". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 443,
¶
Line -16
|
Add "a" between "Let $\mathbf{P}$ be" and "property". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 443,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "morphism" with "morphisms". | L. Potter | 1 2 |
|
p. 446,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace "heuristics" with "heuristic". | L. Potter | 1 2 |
|
p. 447,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace "$(\mathscr{G},\psi)$" with "$(\mathscr{G}',\psi)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 447,
¶
Line 10
|
Replace $\mathscr G$ by $\mathscr G'$. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 449,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace "$q=p_1\circ p=p_2\circ p$" with "$q=p\circ p_1=p\circ p_2$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 449,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace $\varphi$ by $\varphi'$ (twice). | Peng DU | 1 2 |
|
p. 450,
¶
Prop. 14.65
|
The lower right triangle of the diagram constructed at the end of the proof is not commutative in general, therefore the proof is not valid as given here. Furthermore, in Step (i) of the proof of Theorem 14.66 (ed. 1) / Theorem 14.68 (ed. 2), a morphism $f': T'\rightarrow S'$ is considered where $T'$ is a finite disjoint union of affine open subschemes of $S'$ covering $S'$. If $S'$ is not quasi-separated, then it is not possible to find a quasi-compact such $f'$. Therefore, it seems better to handle individually the two cases of this proposition that are needed in the proof of the theorem: The case where $T'$ is a finite disjoint union of open subschemes of $S'$, and the case where $f' : T'=S \rightarrow S'$ is a section of $p: S' \rightarrow S$. Both cases are easy to deal with (the first one because it is clear that morphisms of this kind satisfy descent). A posteriori, the theorem implies that the proposition is actually true in the form stated. | M. Bruneaux, P. Godfard | 1 2 |
|
p. 452,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace "homomorphism" with "homomorphisms". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 453,
¶
Line 14
|
The reference to Theorem 14.17 is wrong. It should refer to Theorem 14.70. | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 454,
¶
Line -17
|
Replace "an morphism" with "a morphism". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 454,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "or fppf-sheaves of sheaves" with "or fppf-sheaves or sheaves". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 455,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace "$G_{S'}$" with "$G_{|S'}$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 457,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace "$\gamma(a_\delta)$" with "$\gamma(b_\delta)$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 457,
¶
Proof of Thm. 14.83
|
It should maybe be stated that for the last assertion of the theorem (taking invariants is a quasi-inverse), it is enough to show - given that we have proved that base change is an equivalence of the two categories - that $(V\otimes k')^\Gamma = V$, which is clear. | U. Görtz/T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 458,
¶
Line -10
|
Replace "straight forward" by "straightforward". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 460,
¶
Diagram (14.22.1), definition of $c(\gamma)$
|
It looks like if we want $c$ to be 1-cocycle, then $c(\gamma)$ should be $\gamma_Y\circ\gamma^{-1}$ instead of $\gamma^{-1}\circ\gamma_Y$ as you defined using the diagram. | Han Zhou | 1 |
|
p. 461,
¶
Line 8
|
Define the symbol $X^{\rm sep}$ as $X\otimes_k k^{\rm sep}$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 461,
¶
Proof of Theorem 14.91
|
For $n=1$ the proof needs to be modified slightly (this case is easier, but the exception should be stated explicitly). Furthermore, in the second part of the proof it might be appropriate to give a few more details, see here. |
J.-C. Syu / U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 461,
¶
Proof of Prop. 14.90
|
Replace "Corollary 5.45" by "Corollary 5.54" and "Theorem 6.28" by "Corollary 6.32". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 462,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace the second $=$ by $-$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 464,
¶
Line 4
|
Insert "Proposition" before "5.30 (2)". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 468,
¶
Line -11
|
Replace ``Lemma 14.106 2'' by ``Lemma 14.106 (2)''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 468,
¶
Lemma 14.109
|
It is enough to assume that $f$ is locally of finite type (and in fact in the proof of the following theorem the lemma is applied with that weaker assumption). The same proof works in the general case. | Jin yong An | 1 2 |
|
p. 470,
¶
Line 12
|
The correct formula is $\mathop{\rm dim} X = \mathop{\rm dim} Y + \mathop{\rm dim} f^{-1}(y)$, i.e., $X$ and $Y$ must be exchanged. | Yong Hu | 1 |
|
p. 471,
¶
Cor. 14.116
|
In part (1), we only obtain $\mathop{\rm dim} f^{-1}(V) = \mathop{\rm dim} f^{-1}(y) + \mathop{\rm dim}(V)$. (In fact, just take $X=Y=\mathop{\rm Spec} R$, where $R$ is a (universally catenary) discrete valuation ring, and $f$ the identity morphism. Then the original statement holds for $V=Y$, but is false for $V$ consisting only of the generic point of $Y$.) In the proof of part (2), it would be easier to appeal to Lemma 14.109, than to invoke Theorem 14.110. (And note that the statement is void for the empty fibers, anyway.) | Yong Hu | 1 |
|
p. 472,
¶
Proof of Cor. 14.119
|
It is not clear from Prop. 14.107 (1) and Cor. 14.118 why the fibers over the maximal points of $Y$ are non-empty, so it seems better to invoke Cor. 14.116 (and Prop. 14.102) instead. | Peng Du / G. Dill | 1 |
|
p. 475,
¶
Proof of Cor. 14.127
|
It might be helpful to add a reference to Thm. B.54 (4) for the equality of the dimensions of the local rings of $x$ and $y$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 477,
¶
Line 19
|
Delete the comma after "means". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 478,
¶
Line -11/Page 583, Line 2
|
The reference [AK] should point to the following article: Altman, Allen B.; Kleiman, Steven L. Compactifying the Picard scheme. Adv. in Math. 35 (1980), no. 1, 50-112. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 481,
¶
Exercise 14.8
|
Replace $X$ by $Y'$. | 1 2 | |
|
p. 483,
¶
Exercise 14.20 (b)
|
replace "if flat." with "is flat". | L. Potter | 1 2 |
|
p. 485,
¶
Prop. 15.1 (ii)
|
Add ``and none of the $X_i$ consists of only one point''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 487,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace the title of the segment by ``Morphisms from spectra of valuation rings to schemes''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 488,
¶
Prop. 15.7
|
Rephrase the statement of the Proposition to indicate that the equality $g(\eta) = y$ can/should be understood in the schematic sense, i.e., that $g$ extends the morphism $\mathop{\rm Spec} K \rightarrow Y$ coming from the inclusion $\kappa(y)\subseteq K$. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 488,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace ``we can in addition assume that the ring $A$ is noetherian'' by ``then the ring $A$ is noetherian''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 488,
¶
Line -6
|
It is claimed that the implication “(i) ⇒ (ii)” of Theorem 15.8 is proved in Lemma 12.61, but the lemma only claims and shows that universal closedness implies the existence of a lift, not the quasi-compactness. The quasi-compactness does hold, though, as e.g. shown by Bjorn Poonen in this answer on MathOverflow. | Bianca Fürstenau | 1 2 |
|
p. 490,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "integers" by "be integers". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 490,
¶
Line 22
|
Replace "Theorem 15.8" by "Theorem 15.9". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 491,
¶
Line 7
|
Switch ${\rm Spec}\ K$ and ${\rm Spec}\ R$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 494,
¶
Proof of Lemma 15.19
|
In the first paragraph, one needs to argue more carefully in order to conclude that the homomorphisms $f_x^\sharp$ are bijective. (It is not enough to assume that $f$ is dominant and locally on $X$ an immersion, and $Y$ is reduced.) Note that the morphisms $U_i\to Y$ are dominant since $U_i\subseteq X$ is dense and $f$ is dominant. Thus they are dominant immersions, and $Y$ being reduced are open immersions. From this it is clear that the $f_x^\sharp$ are isomorphisms. | J. Ehrhard | 1 2 |
|
p. 495,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace "two sets" by "three sets". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 495,
¶
Line 19
|
The term "complete" (= proper over $k$) has not been defined. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 496,
¶
Proposition 15.26 and its proof
|
The curve should consistently be called $C$ (while currently it is called sometimes $C$ and sometimes $X$). | Christian Dahlhausen | 1 2 |
|
p. 497,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace ``If $C$ is a separated curve over a field,'' by ``If $C$ is a separated curve over a field and $U$ is chosen affine,''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 499,
¶
Line -12
|
Replace "over a field" by "over a field $k$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 499,
¶
First line after Definition 15.33
|
Replace left by right. | 1 | |
|
p. 501,
¶
Exercise 15.9
|
Add the assumption that $k$ has characteristic $\ne 2$. | V. Paškūnas | 1 2 |
|
p. 501,
¶
Line 13
|
Replace "discrete valuation" by "discrete valuation ring". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 501,
¶
Line 9
|
Replace ``morpism'' by ``morphism''. | J. Scarfy | 1 |
|
p. 503,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "roughly spoken" by "roughly speaking". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 506,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace $\mathbb P^{nm}_R$ by $\mathbb P^{nm-1}_R$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 507,
¶
Line 6
|
Replace "geometrically integral" by "is geometrically integral". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 507,
¶
Lines 17, -3
|
Replace $v_n$ by $v_m$ and $w_m$ by $w_n$ (with indices as given, the identifications of Hom spaces and spaces of matrices do not hold as stated). Correspondingly, in Line -3, change $k^n$ to $k^m$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 507,
¶
Line -9
|
Replace $\times_k$ by $\times$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 508,
¶
Line 3
|
Change $k^n$ to $k^m$ (cf. the corresponding erratum on page 507). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 508,
¶
Line 5
|
Delete "the same argument and". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 508,
¶
Second line in the proof of Prop. 16.11
|
Add "open subset" after dense. | Andreas Blatter | 1 2 |
|
p. 511,
¶
Line 3
|
Replace $\otimes_k R$ by $\otimes_R k$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 512,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace $\underline{\rm Hom}_{\mathscr G, \mathscr H}$ by $\underline{\rm Hom}(\mathscr G, \mathscr H)$ | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 512,
¶
Line 21 (Proof of Lemma 16.20)
|
Replace $k[T_{ij}]$ by $R[T_{ij}]$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 513,
¶
Line 13 (the diagram), Line -10
|
Replace $\pi_{\mathscr F}$ by $\pi_{\mathscr V}$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 514,
¶
Line 3
|
Remove "below". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 514,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace ``$Y = \mathop{\rm Spec} B[1/d_{I,J}]$'' by ``$Y_{I,J} = \mathop{\rm Spec} B[1/d_{I,J}]$''. | T. Wedhorn | 1 |
|
p. 516,
¶
Proof of Lemma 16.28
|
The definition of $g'$ should be replaced by $g'(e_j') = \sum_{i=1}^n b_{ij}e_i$, $j=1, \dots, n'$. Then $B=(b_{ij})$ is in $M_{n\times n'}(R)$. Then $v(a, b) = (Aa+Bb, b)$, so viewing the direct sums in the source and target of $v$ as column vectors, the matrix $C$ is $C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A & B \\ 0 & I_{n'}\end{array}\right)$. Finally, in the end we want to consider $(n-r+1)$-minors of $A$ and $(n+n'-r+1)$-minors of $C$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 516,
¶
Line 6
|
Delete "an". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 517,
¶
Line -14
|
Delete "the spectrum of". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 519,
¶
Line 17
|
Add period at the end of the sentence. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 521,
¶
Line 8
|
In the expression for $g$, in the third parenthesis there should be $(X_2-1)^2$ instead of $(X_2^2-1)^2$. | Alejandro Vargas and Tim Seynnaeve | 1 2 |
|
p. 524,
¶
Line -7
|
Replace $(\beta, \alpha)$ by $(\beta : \alpha)$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 528,
¶
Line -18
|
Replace $T_2T_3^3$ by $T_2T_3^2$. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 528,
¶
Line 14
|
Replace ``$V_+(p)\in\mathbb P^3_k$'' by ``$V_+(p)\subset\mathbb P^3_k$''. | U. Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 529,
¶
Caption of Figure 16.2
|
Add $=0$ in the end. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 530,
¶
Line -14
|
It should say "the singularities of $Z={\rm Spec}\ k[S,T,U]/(U^3-ST)$", i.e. the base field $k$ is missing. | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 531,
¶
Proposition 16.46
|
Replace $n$ by $r$ in both statement and proof. | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 531,
¶
Line -14
|
Replace "Remark (12.31)" by "Remark 12.31". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 531,
¶
Line 19
|
It should say "If $p(x,y) \in Z(k)$ is a singular point". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 532,
¶
Line 5
|
To emphasize that the minus signs are not a typo, maybe replace "continued fraction" by "negative regular continued fraction". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line 5 of the Proof of Proposition 16.54
|
$p^{-1}(y)$ should be $p_2^{-1}(y)$. | 1 | |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line 6 of the Proof of Proposition 16.54
|
"nieghborhood" should be "neighborhood" | 1 | |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line -8
|
The correct formula is $f(a_1a_2)f(a_2)^{-1}f(a_1)^{-1}$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line 11
|
Replace the definition of $g$ by ``$g := f \circ (x \times \mathop{\rm id}\nolimits_Y) \circ p_2$''. | K. Kidwell | 1 |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line -8
|
Replace $f(a_1 a_2)f(a_1)^{-1}f(a_2)^{-1}$ by $f(a_1 a_2)f(a_2)^{-1}f(a_1)^{-1}$. | Philipp Reichenbach | 1 |
|
p. 534,
¶
Line 20
|
Replace "Proposition 5.51" by "Proposition 5.49". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 534,
¶
Prop. 16.45, statement + Line 18, Proof of Prop. 16.45
|
In the statement of the proposition, $Y$ must be assumed to be integral rather than just reduced (to ensure that the $V$ in the proof is dense in $Y$, hence $X\times V$ dense in $X\times Y$). In the proof (line 18 of the page), replace "Proposition 12.67" by "Corollary 12.67". This result is applied to the morphism $X\otimes\kappa(y')\to U\otimes\kappa(y')$ whence $Y$ in this line must be replaced by $U\otimes_k\kappa(y')$. |
Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 536,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace "Example 16.18" by "Example (16.18)". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 537,
¶
Line -8
|
Add "if" after "only". | U. Görtz | 1 2 |
|
p. 539,
¶
Caption of Figure 16.3
|
Add $=0$ at the end of the first line. Maybe it would look nicer to replace $0.1$ by $\frac{1}{10}$. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 540,
¶
Line 18
|
Add space between the comma and the citation. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 540,
¶
Exercise 16.7
|
As a connected component $G'$ has not necessarily a rational point, it is not geometrically connected in general (and in particular not geometrically irreducible). The exercise should be reformulated as follows: Let $k$ be a field and let $G$ be a $k$-group schemes locally of finite type. Show that every connected component $G'$ of $G$ is irreducible and of finite type. Show that the geometric number of connected components of $G'$ is equal to the geometric number of irreducible components of $G'$. For $k = {\mathbb Q}$ and $G = \mu_p$ (Exercise 16.6) for a prime number $p$ show that $G$ has two connected components and that the geometric number of connected components of $G$ is $p$. | B. Conrad | 1 |
|
p. 540,
¶
Line -6
|
Replace "is no divisor of" by "does not divide". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 545,
¶
Line -14, -7
|
Better to switch the definition of the zero object with the remark, i.e., define the zero object as an initial and final object (the correct definition fo arbitrary categories), and remark that in an additive category it suffices to check one of the two properties. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 546,
¶
Line -10/-9
|
Replace ``left'' by ``right'' and ``right'' by ``left''. | D. Heiss | 1 |
|
p. 549,
¶
Line -2
|
The rank of a free module over the zero ring is not uniquely determined, so this case should be excluded. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 550,
¶
Line 2
|
It should say "An $A$-module", instead of "Am $A$-module". | Javier de la Bodega | 1 2 |
|
p. 551,
¶
Example A.5.(3)
|
The category of sets should also be in the list. | Andreas Blatter | 1 2 |
|
p. 552,
¶
Line 7 (ex. B.17)
|
Replace "$\mathfrak{m}M\neq M$" with "$\mathfrak{m}M=M$". | F. Gispert Sánchez | 1 |
|
p. 554,
¶
Line -2
|
It might be worth adding a reference to arxiv:1011.0038 and/or the Stacks project (058B, 05A5). (Cf. also the Erratum for Remark 7.43, p. 195). | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 554,
¶
Line -1
|
Add the assumption that $A$ is a domain here (since this is when $M_{\rm tors}$ was defined). Same for p. 555, Prop. B.28. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 558,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace "$\dots, \mathfrak a_n)$" by "$\dots, a_n)$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 558,
¶
Line -3
|
Replace "$A$-modules" by "abelian groups". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 559,
¶
Line -16
|
Replace $\mathfrak I^n$ by $\mathfrak I_n$ (and similarly for $n+1$; four changes altogether). | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 560,
¶
Prop. B.55
|
Add the hypothesis that $A$ is noetherian (cf. [Atiyah-Macdonald], Prop. 5.17). | Akira Masuoka | 1 |
|
p. 560,
¶
Line 2
|
Replace "form" by "forms". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 561,
¶
Definition B.58
|
In the second line of the definition, $r$ should be replaced by $n$. | P. Hartwig | 1 |
|
p. 563,
¶
Line 15
|
Replace "as in (iv)" by "as in (v)". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 563,
¶
Prop. B69 (2)
|
The assumption that the extension be algebraic is not required, see [BouAC] VI § 1.2 Cor. to Thm. 2. | Akira Masuoka | 1 |
|
p. 564,
¶
Proposition B.70 (6)
|
What is true (and proved in Matsumura's book) is: If $B$ is normal, then $A$ is normal. If $A$ and $B\otimes_A\kappa(\mathfrak p)$ are normal for all $\mathfrak p\in {\rm Spec}(A)$, then $B$ is normal.
It is not true that normality of $B$ implies normality of the fibers. Consider for instance a discrete valuation ring $A$ with uniformizer $t$ and $B=A[X,Y]/(XY-t)$. Then $B$ is regular and in particular normal, but the special fiber $(A/t)[X, Y]/(XY)$ is not normal. |
M. Kerz | 1 2 |
|
p. 564,
¶
Prop. B.72 (3)
|
Replace "be a noetherian" by "be noetherian". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 565,
¶
Proposition B.80
|
"all minimal prime ideals of $A$ containing $\mathfrak a$" should read "all preimages in $A$ of associated prime ideals of $A / \mathfrak a$", as stated in the reference (Matsumura, 17.6). For example $A = k[x,y] / (x^2,xy)$ is not Cohen-Macaulay, but satisfies the condition with "minimal prime ideals...". | F. Heß, K. Meiwald | 1 2 |
|
p. 565,
¶
Remark B.75 (2)
|
Replace the reference to B.70 (2) by B.70 (3). | Akira Masuoka | 1 |
|
p. 566,
¶
Def./Prop. B.84
|
Add the equivalent term "Dedekind ring", and also change the index to reflect that "Dedekind ring = Dedekind domain". | Peng Du / Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 566,
¶
Prop. B.81 (2), Prop. B.82
|
In both cases $\mathop{\rm depth}\nolimits_A(\mathfrak a)$ needs to be replaced by $\mathop{\rm depth}(\mathfrak a, A)$ (the length of a maximal $A$-regular sequence of elements in $\mathfrak a$, and this symbol needs to be defined). | Akira Masuoka | 1 |
|
p. 568,
¶
Def. B.95
|
Since some of its terms are used before, Def. B.95 and the paragraph preceding it should be moved to right after Def. B.88. | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 569,
¶
Def. B.95 (3)
|
Rephrase as "every extension $K\to \Omega$" with $\Omega$ algebraically closed" to avoid the condition being misread as "$K$ being algebraically closed in $\Omega$". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 574, 575,
¶
|
Add (IND) for faithfully flat and surjective (cf. EGA IV 8.10.5 (vi)). | Y. Zaehringer | 1 |
|
p. 576,
¶
Line 16
|
Replace "Converse" by "Conversely". | Peng Du | 1 |
|
p. 576,
¶
Line 5
|
Replace "as usually" by "as usual". | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 576,
¶
Line 12
|
Replace "universal homomorphism" by "universal homeomorphism". | Yun Hao | 1 |
|
p. 583,
¶
Line 4 (Reference [AK])
|
The reference (from p. 478) should instead point to A. Altman, S. Kleiman, Compactifying the Picard scheme, Adv. Math. 35 (1980), 50--112. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 598,
¶
Left col., lines 3, 4
|
The symbols for direct sum and product should be exchanged. | J.-C. Syu | 1 2 |
|
p. 600,
¶
2nd column, line 8
|
Replace $P^n(k)$ by $\mathbb P^n(k)$. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |
|
p. 603,
¶
Line 17
|
Replace ``Brauer-Severy'' by ``Brauer-Severi''. | J. Calabrese | 1 |
|
p. 612,
¶
1st column, Line -11, -9
|
The entries for quasi-finite morphism (of schemes) should be combined. | Ulrich Görtz | 1 |