This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What's the that appears in the section "Early work on cotangent complexes"? When has it been defined? I think it hould be explained (and I am not able to do it, of course!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.144.46 ( talk) 13:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1) In the definition of cotangent complex you say "For simplicity, we will consider only the case of commutative rings" but then you go on saying "Suppose that A and B are simplicial rings and that B is an A-algebra". Are these sentences in contrast? 2) In the bibliography there is Lichtenbaum-Schlessinger's paper, but it is not clear (to me) that in the case of morphism of affine schemes the definitions coincide. Thanks 84.103.208.40 ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your help. I will go to my University library and take Quillen paper. Even if I am not french I can understand it: I suppose that your translation "I have failed to find" is a translation of "j'ai failli trouver". If it is the case it means "I have nearly found". But I don't know the originl french sentence, so I am just making some hypothesis. I prefer not to touch this wikipedia article since I am new in this domain, so I cannot add interesting remarks!!!. Thank you again. 84.103.208.40 ( talk) 07:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Instead of adding a section for the deformation theory using cotangent complexes, this formalism of deformation theory should be included on this page. In addition, applications such as the deformations of maps should be included, giving an explanation for
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What's the that appears in the section "Early work on cotangent complexes"? When has it been defined? I think it hould be explained (and I am not able to do it, of course!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.144.46 ( talk) 13:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1) In the definition of cotangent complex you say "For simplicity, we will consider only the case of commutative rings" but then you go on saying "Suppose that A and B are simplicial rings and that B is an A-algebra". Are these sentences in contrast? 2) In the bibliography there is Lichtenbaum-Schlessinger's paper, but it is not clear (to me) that in the case of morphism of affine schemes the definitions coincide. Thanks 84.103.208.40 ( talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your help. I will go to my University library and take Quillen paper. Even if I am not french I can understand it: I suppose that your translation "I have failed to find" is a translation of "j'ai failli trouver". If it is the case it means "I have nearly found". But I don't know the originl french sentence, so I am just making some hypothesis. I prefer not to touch this wikipedia article since I am new in this domain, so I cannot add interesting remarks!!!. Thank you again. 84.103.208.40 ( talk) 07:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Instead of adding a section for the deformation theory using cotangent complexes, this formalism of deformation theory should be included on this page. In addition, applications such as the deformations of maps should be included, giving an explanation for